Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies In Church History, Volume 1"

See other formats 


This  is  a reproduction  of  a library  book  that  was  digitized 
by  Google  as  part  of  an  ongoing  effort  to  preserve  the 
information  in  books  and  make  it  universally  accessible. 

Google"  books 

http://books.google.com 


Google 


Digitized  by 


Google 


Digitized  by 


Digitized  by 


STUDIES 


Of 

Church  History, 


mr 

REV.  REUBEN  PARSONS,  D.  D. 


That  a theologian  should  be  well  versed  in 
history.  Is  shown  by  the  fauj  of  those  who, 
through  ignorance  of  history,  have  fallen  Into 

error Whenever  we  theologians  preach, 

argue,  or  explain  Holy  Writ,  we  enter  the  do- 
main of  history.— ” 

mxlchior  Camus,  Lot.  ThtoiL , B.  XI.,  c.  & 


■VOX..  X. 

OENTUKIKS  I. -VIII. 


Second  Edition. 


FR.  PUSTET  & CO., 

NEW  YORK  AND  CINCINNATI. 

lOOO 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


imprimatur : 

* MICHAEL  AUGUSTINUS, 

Archiepiscopus  Neo- E boracensis. 


Coptbight,  1886, 

KEY.  REUBEN  PARSONS,  D.  D. 


W4*  1 8 19J5 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


GT5/.J 


'P2--L 

V ■ \ BRIEF  OF  APPROBATION 

FROM  HIS  HOLINESS,  POPE  LEO  Tin. 


1 

J 


o 

, 

\ 

v ^ 


V, 


& 

J 

< 

i 


£co  %%  seiii 

Dileoto  Fmo,  Beuben  Parsons, 

Presbytero  Neo-Eboracensi : 

DILECTE  FHI,  SALUTEM  ET  APOSTOUCAM  BENEDICTIONEM ! 

Senis  voluminibus  quce  nuper  edita  ad  Nos  misisti , duplicem 
assequutus  es  laudem , et  utramqe  merito  ; alteram  alacris  ingenii 
magnceque  eruditionis , alteram  incensi  studii  ad  Catholicum 
Nomen  ah  osorum  calumniis  vindicandura . Mens  tibi  in  operoso 
labor e exantlando  ea  unice  fuit9  ut , depulsis  erroribus  ex  historia 
qucesitis9  facilius  qui  dissident  ad  Catholica  Sacra  adducantur. 
Hanc  tibi  mentem , Dilecte  Fill,  fortunet  Deus  ! Nihil  enim 
optatius  Nobis  est  quam  ut  omnes  unico  Christi  ovili , quotquot 
Ejus  Sanguine  redempti  su?it,  contineantur.  Quo  vero  officii 
gratiam  rependamus , Apostolicam  Benedictionem  Nostram , 
tibi  caritatis  testem , amantissime  impertimus. 

Datum  Romos  apud  S.  Petrum  die  XX.  Maii , Anno  MCMI., 
Pontificatus  Nostri  Anno  vicesimo  quarto. 


{ TRANSLATION .) 

To  Our  Beloved  Son,  Beuben  Parsons, 

Priest  of  the  Archdiocese  of  New  York : 

Beloved  Son  : Health  and  Apostolic  Blessing  ! 

For  the  six  volumes  which  you  have  recently  published, 
and  which  you  have  sent  to  Us,  you  have  received  two  encom- 
iums, both  of  which  you  have  deserved ; one  because  of  your 
spirited  talent  and  great  erudition,  the  other  because  of  your 
fervent  zeal  in  defense  of  the  Catholic  cause  from  audacious 
calumny.  In  the  execution  of  your  laborious  design,  you 
have  had  only  one  object  in  view ; namely,  such  a refutation 
of  historical  errors  as  would  impel  separatists  to  enter  into 
the  Catholic  Fold.  May  God  second  your  endeavors,  dear 
son  ! Nothing  is  nearer  to  Our  heart  than  the  hope  that  the 
One  Fold  of  Christ  may  soon  shelter  all  who  have  been 
redeemed  by  His  Blood.  And  now,  mindful  6f  the  privilege 
of  Our  office  in  your  regard,  we  accord  Our  Apostolic  Bless- 
ing to  you  most  lovingly,  as  a testimony  of  our  affection  for  you. 

Given  at  St.  Peter’s  in  Borne  on  the  Twentieth  Day  of 
May,  in  the  Year  MCML,  the  Twenty-fourth  Year  of  Our 
Pontificate. 

Leo  PP.  XTTL 


Digitized  by 


Google 


APPROBATION  OF 


MT.  REV.  MICHAEL  AUGUSTINE  CORRIGAN,  D.D. 
ARCHBISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


ABOHBISHOP’8  HOUSE, 

New  York,  Jan.  22,  1901. 


Rev.  Dear  Doctor  : 


Permit  me  to  congratulate  you  most 
sincerely  on  the  successful  completion  of  the  Herculean  task 
of  publishing  your  “ Studies  In  Church  History.”  The  six 
ample  volumes  which,  under  this  modest  title,  embody  the 
results  of  your  labors,  will  remain  a monument  of  your  zeal, 
your  great  learning,  and  your  unflinching  perseverance.  Im - 
probu8  labor  omnia  vincit . In  these  volumes  you  offer  light 
and  valuable  guidance  regarding  all  the  knotty  questions  and 
controverted  points  of  Church  History ; and  you  supply  an 
arsenal  whence  may  be  drawn  unfailingly  ammunition  for  the 
defence  of  the  Church  against  oft-repeated  calumnies  and  mis- 
statements of  facts.  Moreover,  with  this  wealth  of  erudition 
in  vindicating  the  truth,  there  runs  through  the  entire  work  a 
beautiful  docility  to  the  See  of  Peter — in  fine,  that  Roman 
spirit  which  is  like  a sixth  sense,  instinctively  pointing  to 
what  is  right,  and  guarding  from  error.  While  I felicitate 
you  on  the  accomplishment  of  the  greatest  literary  work  ever 
undertaken  by  a priest  of  this  Diocese,  I thank  you  for  the 
good  example  which  you  have  thereby  given  to  your  Breth- 
ren in  the  Clergy  ; and  I trust  that  it  may  stimulate  others 
to  devote  their  talents  and  their  leisure  to  promoting  the 
greater  glory  of  Him  who  is  the  Immortal  King  of  Ages,  and 
the  World’s  Redeemer. 

1 am,  my  dear  Doctor, 

Very  faithfully  yours, 


Abp.  of  New  York, 

Rev.  Db.  Parsons, 

Yonkers,  N.  Y. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PREFACE. 


Of  all  branches  of  history,  none  is*  so  pregnant  with  mat- 
ter for  controversy  as  that  which  treats  of  the  career  of  the 
Church  ; none  excites  such  wide-spread  interest,  or  causes 
such  intense  feeling.  “ Theological  hate  ” is  proverbially 
strong  ; and  it  influences  the  person  of  superior  culture  as 
effectively  as  it  does  one  of  ordinary  attainments.  To  all 
who  are  animated  by  this  sentiment,  ecclesiastical  history 
furnishes  teen  and  powerful  weapons.  But  to  those  who 
are  actuated  by  simple  yearning  for  truth,  to  those  who  feel 
that  the  career  of  a society  must  show  whether  it  be  of  God 
or  of  m m,  this  branch  of  science  is  of  first  importance.  In 
our  day,  especially,  appeals  to  ecclesiastical  history  are  not 
merely  of  last  resort— certain  thinking  men  are  influenced 
by  its  lessons  when  they  ignore  other  authority  in  religious 
matters,  agreeing  with  Fenelon  that  “He  is  profoundly  ig- 
norant of  the  nature  of  religion,  who  does  not  perceive 
that  she  is  all  historical  ” ( Education  c.  vi). 

In  publishing  the  following  dissertations,  we  are  act- 
uated by  a desire  to  supply  a want  in  our  English  eccle- 
siastical literature.  Histories  of  the  Church  we  have  in 
abundance,  but  no  one  work  which  treats  exhaustively, 
and  nearly  exclusively,  of  the  many  controverted  points 
which  are  of  interest  alike  to  Catholic,  Protestant,  and  in- 
cfedulist.  We  claim  no  merit  for  having  thrown  new  light 
upon  subjects,  many  of  which  have  been  fully  illustrated  by 
master-minds,  whose  writings  are  familiar  to  the  ex- 
perienced ; but  zeal  and  conscientiousness  have  united  in 
an  endeavor  to  lessen  the  labors  of  the  student  in  a most 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


VL 


PREFACE. 


important  branch  of  ecclesiastical  lore.  We  are  not  with- 
out hope  that  our  pages  will  be  read  witli  interest  and 
profit  by  many  of  the  Catholic  laity,  as  well  as  by  many  of 
our  separated  brethren  ; for  while  we  have  not  designed  to 
produce  a “ popular  ” book,  it  would  have  been  difficult,  in 
a just  treatment  of  the  subject  matter,  to  confine  ourselves 
more  carefully  to  the  vernacular,  and  to  avoid  more  rigidly 
the  technicalities  of  theologians  and  canonists.  All  may 
not  be  pleased  with  the  numerous  references  and  quotations, 
which  they  may  deem  an  encumbrance  to  the  page  ; but  it 
seemed  injudicious,  if  not  absurd,  to  expect  the  reader  to 
receive,  on  the  author’s  unsupported  authority,  citations 
and  assertions  which  might  affect,  and  sometimes  wound, 
one’s  prejudices.  During  the  course  of  our  disquisitions 
we  are  too  frequently  compelled  to  rebuke  such  presump- 
tion. Again,  the  experienced  student  will  appreciate  the 
method  adopted,  and  will  not  regard  it  as  an  affectation  of 
erudition.  He  knows  that  by  referring  to  the  designated 
authority,  he  will  derive,  in  the  majority  of  instances,  ad- 
ditional and  valuable  information  concerning  the  matter 
treated  in  the  text. 

We  issue  our  work  as  a sincere,  albeit  inadequate,  token  of 
our  devotion  to  that  Roman  Church  which  the  light  of  his- 
tory reveals  to  us  as  One,  Holy,  Catholic,  Apostolic ; as 
the  True  Spouse  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  solely  intrusted 
by  the  Divine  Master  with  the  deposit  of  truth,  which  she 
is  to  guard  and  communicate  until  the  end  of  time. 

New  York, 

Feast  of  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  1886. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


CHAPTER  L 

THE  ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER  THE  APOSTLE. 

The  occupant  of  the  Papal  chair  may  be  regarded  in  four 
different  ways.  He  is  pastor  of  the  Universal  Church,  patri- 
arch of  the  West,  bishop  of  Rome,  and  a temporal  sovereign. 
As  ruler  of  the  Pontifical  States,  most  Protestants  would 
prefer  his  deposition,  simply  because  they  are  averse  to  any- 
thing which  adds  to  the  dignity  of  his  position.  As  bishop 
of  Rome,  the  Schismatics  of  the  East  and  the  Anglicans  are 
willing  to  recognize  him ; dissenting  Protestants  are  willing 
he  should  be  so  styled,  so  long  as  his  diocesans  are  content 
with  the  episcopal  system.  As  patriarch  of  the  West,  the 
oriental  Schismatics  readily  acknowledge  him,  while  Protes- 
tants scarcely  know  of  the  title.  But  when  the  Pontiff 
asserts  his  authority  as  supreme  pastor  of  Christendom,  then 
all  the  separatist  bodies,  schismatical  and  heretical,  prelatic 
and  anti-prelatic,  unite  in  rejecting  his  words.  This  office 
of  Head  of  the  Church  is  claimed  by  the  Pope  as -the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter.  The  adversary  of  the  Papacy,  who 
devotes  his  energies  to  the  undermining  of  this  position,  is 
so  far  logical,  and  he  manifests  an  appreciation  of  the  value 
of  time.  Could  the  Pontiff  be  dislodged  from  it,  there  would 
be  left  him  no  vantage-ground,  the  occupation  of  which  would 
enable  him  to  retrieve  his  loss.  Now,  the  simplest  way  of 
proving  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  not  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter,  is  not  by  showing  that  he  has  no  legitimate  title  of 
succession,  riot  by  contending  that  the  wickedness  or  even 
heresy  of  his  predecessors  entailed  a forfeiture  of  that  suc- 
cession ; but  by  establishing,  as  a stubborn  and  eloquent 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


2 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORt. 


fact,  that  St.  Peter  himself,  the  presumed  source  of  the  Pa- 
pal claims,  never  was  bishop  of  Rome — in  fine,  that  he  never 
was  in  the  Eternal  City.  In  many  and  various  ways,  the  ad- 
versaries of  Rome  have  endeavored  to  prove  this,  and  the 
object  of  the  present  dissertation  is  to  show  that  the  Prince 
of  the  Apostles  did  proceed  to  Rome,  and  that  he  there 
founded  his  Primatial  see. 

The  first  to  cast  doubt  upon  St.  Peter’s  coming  to  Rome 
was  Marsilius  of  Padua,  a partisan  of  Louis  the  Bavarian,  and 
excommunicated  as  a schismatic  and  heretic  by  an  express 
Bull  of  Pope  John  XXII.  in  1327.  From  his  time  to  that  of 
the  Lutheran  movement  we  meet  no  author  of  note  who 
held  such  a view.  The  antiquarian  Leland  (d.  1557),  among 
his  many  ways  of  pleasing  his  patron,  Henry  YIII.,  chose  the 
publication  of  the  adverse  opinion.  The  rank  and  file  of 
Protestant  writers  have  either  absolutely  denied  the  Roman 
Pontificate  of  St.  Peter,  or  have  affected  to  regard  it  as  du- 
bious. There  are  not  wanting,  however,  Protestant  authors 
who  defend  our  thesis,  and  they  are  among  the  most  celebra- 
ted of  tlieir  class.  Such  are  Pearson,  Usher,  Young,  Ham- 
mond, Blondel,  Basnage,  J.  Scaliger,  Grotius,  Casaubon, 
Leclerc,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Leibnitz,  Chamier,  Papp,  Ittig, 
Schrokh,  Bertlioldt.  Neamler,  Gieseler,  and  even  the  Centu- 
riators  of  Magdeburg.  The  younger  Scaliger  contradicts 
himself  in  this  matter,  for  while  in  his  Annotations  to  th r 18th 
Chapter  of  the  Apoeahjpse  he  asserts  that  no  instructed  person 
will  believe  in  the  voyage  of  St.  Peter  to  Rome,  he  contends 
against  Eusebius  (1)  that  the  Apostle  came  to  Rome,  not  in 
the  fourth  year  of  Claudius,  but  in  the  second.  Basnage  ( 2) 
and  Leclerc  (3)  agree  that  assent  cannot  be  refused  to  the 
testimonies  in  favor  of  the  Roman  voyage,  that  only  some 
objections  of  a chronological  nature  can  be  presented,  and 
that  the  martyrdom  of  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul,  in  the  reign  of 
Nero,  is  an  incontestable  fact.  But  they  hold  that. St.  Peter 
was  no  more  bishop  of  Rome  than  of  any  other  place,  and 
that  there  are  stronger  reasons  for  supposing  St.  Paul  to 
have  been  bishop  of  the  Eternal  City,  than  there  are  for  St. 
Peter’s  having  exercised  that  office.  We  shall  treat  of  this. 

(1)  Animadversion*  (m  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius.  (2)  History,  />.  7,  c.  3.  (3)  Year  168, » ^ 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


BOfcAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETEB 


3 


matter  when  we  have  established  the  reality  of  the  Roman 
voyage.  Hugo  Grotius,  than  whom  Protestants  can  produce 
few  more  learned  writers,  says  (1),  “As  regards  Babylon, 
there  is  a controversy  between  the  ancient  and  modern  inter- 
preters. By  it  the  ancients  understand  Rome,  where  no 
true  Christian  will  doubt  Peter  to  have  been;  the  moderns 
hold  that  by  it  is  meant  Babylon  of  Chaldea.  I agree  with 
the  ancients.”  Neander  (2)  says  that  it  would  be  “ hyper- 
critical to  doubt  the  tradition  of  Christian  antiquity,  that 
Peter  was  in  Rome.”  Among  Catholic  authors,  Pagi,  Pape- 
brock,  Baluze,  Valois,  Calmet,  Alexandre,  and  many  others, 
dispute  as  to  the  precise  year  of  St.  Peter’s  arrival  in  Rome, 
but  all  agree  that  he  came  there,  established  there  the  Prima- 
cy, and  there  suffered  martyrdom. 

We  contend  that  the  following  events  are  asserted  and  be- 
lieved to  have  happened,  on  as  convincing  grounds  as  those 
upon  which  rests  any  undisputed  fact  in  history.  After  the 
ascension  of  our  Lord,  Simon  Bar-Jona  (son  of  John),  to 
whom  Christ  had  given  the  name  of  Peter,  having  preached 
the  Gospel  in  many  places  of  Judea,  Galilee,  and  Samaria, 
went  to  Antioch  in  the  year  36,  and  there  established  an 
episcopal  see.  In  the  year  42,  the  second  of  Claudius,  he 
came  to  Rome,  and  there  definitively  fixed  his  Priraatial  see, 
suffering  martyrdom  in  the  twenty-fifth  year  of  his  Roman 
Pontificate,  namely,  in  the  year  66.  No  one  disputes  the 
voyage  to  Antioch,  for  nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  so  doing. 
As  for  the  Apostle’s  presence  in  Rome,  the  first  witness  we 
call  is  St.  Peter  himself.  In  his  first  Epistle,  chap.  5,  he 
says : “ The  Church  that  is  in  Babylon  . . . saluteth  you,” 
in  which  place,  we  contend,  Rome  is  understood  by  Babylon, 
in  accordance  with  that  figurative  mode  of  signifying,  by 
that  name,  any  great  but  wicked  city,  which  is  in  vogue  even 
in  our  own  day.  So  this  passage  of  St.  Peter  was  under- 
stood by  Papias,  a disciple  of  the  Apostles,  for  he  says, 
44  Peter  mentions  this  Mark  in  the  first  Epistle  which  he  is 
said  to  have  written  at  Rome ; which  Epistle  he  indeed 
shows  to  have  been  written  there,  when,  by  a translation  of 

(1)  On  the  5th  Chapter  of  St.  Peter's  1st  Epistle. 

(2)  General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church , v.  1,  p.  1. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


4 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  word,  he  calls  that  city  Babylon. ”(1)  That  the  Apostles 
sometimes  designated  Rome  by  the  name  of  Babylon,  we 
learn  from  St.  John’s  Apocalypse,  for,  in  chap.  17,  great  Baby- 
lon is  said  to  sit  upon  seven  hills,  and  to  hold  sway  over 
the  kings  of  the  earth.  Now,  in  St.  John’s  time,  no  other 
widely-ruling  city  than  Rome  was  built  upon  seven  hills. 
But  why  did  St.  Peter  call  Rome  by  the  name  of  Babylon? 
Why  does  any  man  use  figurative  language?  we  may  retort. 
But  there  was  a reason,  in  the  Apostle’s  case,  for  not  men- 
tioning the  place  of  his  residence.  He  had  just  escaped  from 
his  prison  in  Jerusalem,  and  it  was  prudent,  lest  his  letter 
should  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  to  disguise  the 
name  of  the  place  whence  it  went.  (2)  Again,  it  was  advisa- 
ble that  the  quick  increase  of  the  Christian  numbers  in  the 
capital  should  not  be  known,  lest  the  emperor  Claudius,  who 
studied  to  please  Agrippa,  should  more  severely  persecute 
them.  But  if,  by  Babylon,  the  Apostle  did  not  mean  Rome, 
from  what  city  did  he  write  his  letter?  Our  adversaries 
answer,  the  real  Babylon.  In  those  days,  there  were  two 
places  of  that  name,  one  in  Assyria  and  one  in  Egypt.  Now, 
the  Babylon  of  the  text  cannot  be  theBabylon  of  the  Assyr- 
ians, for  we  know  from  Josephus  (3)  that,  a few  years 
before  this  time,  the  Jews  had  all — to  a man — been  either 
killed,  or  expelled  from  the  city.  Nor  could  the  Babylon  of 
Egypt  have  been  the  place  of  St.  Peter’s  residence  at  the 
time  he  wrote  his  Epistle . That  Babylon,  we  learn  from 
Strabo  (4),  was  a small  and  insignificant  place,  not  worthy  the 
name  of  town  or  village,  for  it  is  styled  a castle.  The  letter 
in  question  speaks  of  a flourishing  church,  which  would 
certainly  imply  a place  of  some  note.  (5) 

(1)  In  Eusebius  : History , b.  2,  c.  14.  (2)  St.  Luke  used  the  same  economy,  when.  In  the 
Acts,  he  said  that  St.  Peter  went  to  another  place. 

(3)  Antiquities,  b.  18.  (4)  Book  17. 

(5)  During  the  first  five  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  not  one  author  understands  any 
'Other  place  than  Rome  by  the  Babylon  of  the  text.  Among  those  who  explicitly  declare 
that  St.  Peter  wrote  his  Epistle  at  Rome,  we  cite  Tertulllan  ( Against  the  Jews,  c.  9) ; Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria  ( Institutions , b.  vL,  in  Eusebius,  b.  2,  c.  15) ; Eusebius,  ibid ; St.  Jerome, 
( Ecclesiastical  Writ  ax'!.  Those  who  believe  that  St.  Peter  was  "bishop  of  Babylon  in  Chal- 
dea, should  remember  that  it  has  always  been  the  tradition  of  the  Chaldeans  that  their  first 
bishop  was  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  who,  after  six  years  of  administration,  was  succeeded 
by  Addeus  or  Thaddeus.  In  the  Catalogue  of  Chaldean  patriarchs , first  published  in  the 
West  by  Assemani,  and  continued  to  our  own  days  by  G Uriel  (Rome,  1860),  we  find  the 
-name  of  St.  Thomas  at  the  head.  We  may  also  cite  Martin  Luther's  opinion  In  our  favor 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


5 


St.  Paul  furnishes  us  with,  if  not  a positive  argument,  at 
least  a good  reason  for  supposing  the  presence  of  St.  Peter 
in  the  Eternal  City.  In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  written, 
says  the  Protestant  Paley,  in  the  year  53,  he  speaks  of  the 
Church  as  being  in  a flourishing  condition  in  Rome.  Some 
one  of  the  Apostles  had  therefore  preached  the  Gospel 
there  several  years  before  the  advent  of  St.  Paul.  There  are 
no  traces  of  any  other  Apostle  than  Peter  having  been  there, 
while  the  Biblical  indie  itions  point  at  least  to  his  presence. 
Again,  St.  Mark,  a disciple  of  St  Peter,  wrote  his  Gospel  at 
Rome.  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his  Hyputiposeon , says, 
4i  When  Peter  had  publicly  preached  the  word  of  God  in  the 
city  of  Rome,  and,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  had  promul- 
gated the  Gospel,  many  who  were  present  requested  Mark, 
as  one  who  had  but  lately  followed  Peter,  and  had  his 
sayings  by  memory,  that  he  would  write  down  that  which 
the  Apostle  had  preached.”  Therefore,  St.  Peter  was  at 
Rome.  ( 1 ) 

Our  adversaries  particularly  insist  upon  the  silence  of 
St.  Paul  as  to  St.  Peter,  when  he  writes  to  the  Romans. 
Wrhen  saluting  so  many  by  name,  he  would  not  have  omit- 
ted a remembrance  to  Peter,  had  he  been  in  Rome.  And 
nevertheless,  when  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Ephesians,  he  did 
not  salute  their  bishop,  Timothy  ; when  he  wrote  to  the 
Hebrews,  he  made  no  mention  of  St.  James,  who  was  bishop 
of  Jerusalem.  When  Theodoret,  a most  critical  investiga- 
tor, commented  upon  this  Epistle,  far  from  concluding  from 
it  that  St.  Peter  never  went  to  Rome,  he  noted,  in  his  first 
chapter,  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  “confirming”  the  faith  of 
the  Romans,  because  St.  Peter  had  already  preached  the 
Gospel  to  them.  “ Because  the  great  Peter,  ” says  Theo- 
doret, “had  first  given  them  the  Gospel,  he  necessarily  said 

for  one  of  his  attacks  on  the  Roman  Church  Is  entitled  “ The  Captivity  of  Babylon.”  An- 
other reason  for  refusing  to  recognize  the  Chaldean  city  as  the  Babylon  of  the  text,  may  be 
found  in  the  utter  silence  of  Scripture  and  of  all  ecclesiastical  writers  as  to  St.  Peter’s  ever 
having  passed  the  Euphrates. 

(1)  The  following  writers  also  assert  that  St.  Mark  was  a faithful  disciple  of  St.  Peter, 
and  that  he  wrote  his  Gospel  at  Rome,  with  the  approval  of  the  Apostle  : Irenaeus  (Here- 
tics, b.  3,  c.  1),  Origen  ( Commentary  on  Matthew,  in  Eusebius,  b.  2,  c.  25),  Tertullian  (Mar- 
cion,  IV.,  5),  Jerome  (Isaias,  LXV.,  24),  Epiphanlus  (Heresies,  46),  Theodoret  (Epistle  86, 
to  Flavian). 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


6 


STUDIES  IN  CHUKOH  HISTORY. 


* to  confirm  you.’  For  he  says,  1 1 do  not  wish  to  bring  you 
another  doctrine,  but  to  confirm  that  already  given,  and  to 
water  the  tree  already  planted.’”  But  there  was  a good 
reason  why  St.  Paul  did  not  salute  the  Prince  of  the  Apos- 
tles in  this  Epistle  ; he  was  absent  from  Rome  at  the  time. 
We  know,  from  Suetonius  and  Josephus,  that  in  the  9th 
year  of  Claudius,  that  is,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  50,  the 
entire  Jewish  population  had  been  sent  into  exile.  The 
next  year  was  that  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  at 
which  St.  Peter  presided.  He  did  not  return  to  Rome  un- 
til after  the  death  of  Claudius,  in  the  year  54.  Now,  St. 
Paul's  Epistle  was  written  at  Corinth,  shortly  after  the 
Council,  as  he  passed  through  that  city,  on  his  last  visit  ta 
Jerusalem  (1).  Therefore,  he,  quite  naturally,  made  no  al- 
lusion to  St.  Peter.  A very  interesting  argument  against 
the  Roman  Pontificate  of  St.  Peter  is  drawn  from  the  Bi- 
ble, as  follows  : If  Peter  was  at  Rome  when  St.  Paul  ar- 

rived, the  latter  was  very  injurious  to  the  former,  or  else 
we  must  say  that  St.  Peter  behaved  in  a very  unchristian- 
like  manner  to  his  co-apostle.  For,  St.  Paul,  writing  from 
Rome  to  the  Philippians,  says  ( Chap . 2)  that  there  they 
all  look  after  their  own  affairs,  not  those  of  Christ ; and  ho 
says  to  Timothy  that  all  abandoned  him  to  his  own  de- 
fence when  he  was  arrested.  Further,  when  St.  Paul  was 
entering  Rome  (Acts,  28),  the  brethren  went  out  to  meet* 
him,  as  far  as  the  Three  Taverns,  but  there  was  no  St. 
Peter  among  them.  To  this  reasoning  we  may  say,  with 
Alexandre,  that  we  do  not'  contend  that  St.  Peter  was^ 
always  in  Rome,  that  he  was  faste  i^d  there  like  Prome- 
theus on  Caucasus.  His  very  v'ti.  e entailed  upon  him 
the  necessity  of  travelling  considerably,  leaving  the  care* 
of  the  Roman  Christians  to  his  vicars,  from  time  to  time. 
But.  with  regard  to  the  argument  tasen  from  Philij >- 
pians,  the  context  shows  that  the  Apostle  only  alludes  to 
those  whom  lie  could  have  sent  on  his  errand  ; certainly, 
he  could  not  have  sent  Peter  as  a messenger  : “ And  I hope- 

(1)  That  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Homans  was  written  at  Corinth,  shortly  after  the  Coun- 
cil of  Jerusalem  (year  51),  Is  proved  hy  Origen  with  the  following  arguments.  It  was  sent 
by  the  hands  of  Phoebe,  a deaconess  of  Cenehris,  a suburb  of  Corluth.  The  Apostle  calls 
Cains,  who  was  living  at  Corinth,  his  host.  In  the  salutations  of  ('hap.  16,  h*  -*»eaks  of  hla. 
companions  In  the  Jerusalem  journey,  who  were  with  ’dm  at  Corinth. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


7 


in  tlie  Lord  Jesus  to  send  Timothy  unto  you  shortly,  that  I 
also  may  be  of  good  comfort,  when  I know  the  things  con- 
cerning you.  For  I have  no  man  so  of  the  same  mind,  who 
with  sincere  affection  is  solicitous  for  you.’*  In  writing  to 
Timothy,  the  saint  complains  of  being  abandoned  by  those 
who  might  have  helped  him  with  Caesar,  and  among  those  St. 
Peter  is  not  to  be  counted,  for  he  was  placed  in  the  same 
danger  as  St.  Paul.  Another  objection  is  founded  on  St. 
Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  1 and  2,  where  the  Apostle 
makes  no  mention  of  having  conversed  with  St.  Peter  in 
Pome,  although  he  tells  us  of  their  having  met  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  at  Antioch.  But  such  mention  could  not  be  made 
in  an  Epistle  which  was  written  before  St.  Paul's  visit  to 
Pome.  He  arrived  in  Rome  in  the  year  59,  and  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Galatians  was  composed  at  Epln  sus  in  57,  as  is 
shown  by  the  journey  of  the  saint,  and  by  the  arguments 
prefixed  to  the  Epistle  in  the  Latin  codices. 

The  silence  of  St.  Luke,  in  his  history  ol  ihe  Apostles,  is 
also  adduced  by  our  adversaries  to  prove  that  St.  Peter  was 
never  in  Pome.  But  this  silence  is  easily  explained,  and  in 
such  a way  as  to  show  that  it  in  no  way  favors  our  oppo- 
nents. St.  Luke's  principal  object  was  the  narration  of  the 
Acts  of  his  preceptor,  St.  Paul,  and  not  those  of  the  other 
Apostles.  With  the  exception  of  those  events  which  hap- 
pened between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  conversion  of 
St.  Paul,  which  he  narrates  as  a kind  of  introduction  to  his 
main  purpose,  and  Peter’s  conversion  of  < .u  nolius,  which 
was  the  commencement  of  the  vocation  of  . **  Gentiles,  to 
which  St.  Paul  was  specially  called,  St.  L ke,  in  the  whole 
course  of  his  history,  makes  no  mention  any  of  the  other 
Apostles,  unless  where  St.  Paul  is  concern*  1.  He  is  silent 
even  as  to  St.  Paul  s journey  to  Jerusal  * ^ see  St.  Peter ; 

lie  says  nothing  of  the  meeting  of  the  t -v  Antioch,  and 

nothing  of  St.  Paul’s  journey  to  Galatia.  * den  noting  this 
silence  of  St  Luke,  St.  Jerome  did  not  * i d it  as  an  ar- 
gument against  St.  Peters  residence  at  P i » ; on  the  con- 
trary, be  contended  that,  because  it  wa - n tain  that  St. 
Peter  resided  both  at  Antioch  and  at  Rome,  therefore  it  was 
manifest  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  omitted  many  things. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


8 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Speaking  of  tlie  dissension  between  the  two  Apostles  upon 
the  legal  observances,  the  great  doctor  says,  in  his  first  book 
on  Galatians , treating  of  the  second  chapter,  “ It  is  not 
strange  that  Luke  is  silent  as  to  this  matter,  since  he  used 
the  license  of  a historiographer  to  omit  many  other  things 
which  Paul  performed  ; and  there  is  no  contradiction,  if 
what  one  man  thinks  proper  to  relate,  another  leaves  aside. 
We  know  that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Antioch,  and 
that  afterwards  he  removed  to  Rome,  a fact  which  Luke  al- 
together omitted/' 

St.  Clement  of  Rome,  who  became  Pontiff  about  the  year 
90,  was  a disciple  of  St.  Peter.  In  an  epistle  which  he 
wrote  to  the  Corinthians  shortly  after  the  persecution  of 
Domitian,  commemorating  the  glorious  sufferings  of  the 
Roman  Christians,  he  says,  ‘‘  Let  us  place  the  glorious 
Apostles  before  our  eyes.  Peter  did  not  undergo  one  or 
two,  but  many,  sufferings,  on  account  of  wdcked  jealousy  ; 
and  being  made  a martyr,  he  departed  to  the  merited  place 
of  glory.  Tij rough  emulation,  Paul  obtained  the  reward  of 
patience  . . . and  coming  to  the  far  West,  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom under  the  princes,  and  migrated  from  the  world.  . . 
To  these  heroes,  who  entered  upon  divine  life,  was  joined  a 
great  multitude  of  the  elect,  who,  suffering  in  rivalry  many 
contumelies  and  many  torments,  were  a beautiful  example 
among  us.”  The  authority  of  St.  Clement  is  of  indispu- 
table historical  value,  and  is  readily  accepted  as  such  by 
Pearson,  Junius,  Basnage,  and  other  Protestants.  But 
some  regard  his  testimony  as  defective,  inasmuch  as  he 
does  not  explicitly  state  that  St.  Peter  died  at  Rome.  But 
it  is  certain,  in  the  first  place,  that  St.  Clement’s  letter  was 
written  in  Rome,  for  the  inscription  leaves  no  doubt  on  the 
matter,  and  as  such  it  was  regarded  by  Dionysius  of  Cor- 
inth, Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen.  The  saint  speaks 
of  the  great  sufferings  which  had  been  undergone  by  his 
people,  and  which  served  as  a beautiful  example  to  all , 
among  these  sufferings,  he  places  those  of  Sts.  Peter  and 
Paul,  and  the  whole  context  shows  that  the  “ great  multi- 
tude ” and  the  two  Apostles  wrere  martyred  in  the  same 
place  and  about  the  same  time.  He  speaks  of  St.  Paul  “ com- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


9 


ing  to  the  far  West  ” to  be  martyred  “under  the  princes,” 
and  in  such  close  connection  is  this  remark  with  that  upon 
St.  Peter,  that  the  latter’s  presence  in  the  far  West,  and 
his  suffering  under  the  princes,  are  fully  implied.  The 
“ great  multitude”  of  Roman  martyrs  is  “joined  ” not  only 
to  St.  Paul,  suffering  in  the  far  West,  but  to  “ these  heroes,” 
of  whom,  he  tells  us,  St.  Peter  was  one.  Tiie  context  seems 
— to  us,  at  least — so  plainly  indicative  of  the  martyrdom  in 
Rome  of  both  the  Apostles,  that  an  attempt  to  render  it 
more  clearappears  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  futile. (1)  We  have 
already  read  the  testimony  of  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapo- 
lis,  in  connection  with  the  belief  that  St.  Mark  wrote  his 
Gospel  at  Rome,  at  the  dictation  of  St.  Peter.  Papias  was 
a contemporary  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  probably 
his  disciple,  and  when  he  tells  us  that  St.  Peter  wrote 
his  first  Epistle  in  Rome,  his  assertion  should  not  be  rashly 
contemned. 

St.  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  was  a pupil  of  St.  Poly- 
carp, a disciple  of  St.  John.  In  his  work  on  Heresies , b.  3,  c. 
1,  he  says,  “ But  because  it  would  take  too  long  a time  to- 
enumerate,  in  this  volume,  the  successions  of  all  the 
churches,  we  will  confound  all  who,  in  any  way,  gather  out- 
side the  vineyard,  by  indicating  the  Apostolic  tradition,  and 
the  faith  preached  to  men,  and  handed  down  to  us  by  the 
succession  of  bish*  ps  of  the  greatest,  and  most  ancient,  and 
most  noted  Church,  that  one  founded  and  established  in 
Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul.” 
Caius,  a Roman  priest  who  lived  at  the  end  of  the  second, 
and  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  is  quoted  by 
Eusebius,  Hist.,  />.,  2,  c.  15,  as  saying,  “ I,  however,  can  show 
the  monuments  of  the  Apostles.  For,  whether  you  go  to 
the  Vatican,  or  along  the  Ostian  Way,  you  will  meet  the 
monuments  of  those  who  founded  that  Church.”  The  testi- 

(1)  Pearson,  Anglican  bishop  of  Chester  (d.  1686),  answers  tills  objection  by  asking  how 
Ciement  could  have  asserted  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Peter,  if  he  was  ignorant  of  the  place 
where  it  occurred,  as  the  objection  implies.  How  did  he  know  that  the  Apostle  sulTered  on  ac- 
count of  his  own  zeal,  and  the  Jealousy  of  his  enemies?  Clement  therefore  knew  that  the 
martyrdom  took  place  at  Rome,  but  did  uot  expressly  state  the  fact,  as  there  was  no  ne- 
cessity for  so  doing,  it  being  too  notorious  to  demaud  mention  when  the  text  did  not  require 
it.  This  purely  negative  argument  is  so  puerile,  that  a scholar  of  the  calibre  of  Saumaise 
(its  author)  would  not  be  expects  to  adduce  it.  Were  we  to  write  a eulogy  of  the  late- 
Pope  Pina  IX.,  and  not  state  that  he  died  at  Rome,  it  would  not  be  said  that  we  were  igno- 
rant cf  the  place  of  his  death. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


10 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


raony  of  Tertullian  (b.  150)  is  remarkably  clear  (1).  “ Come, 
then,  you  who  wish  to  better  satisfy  your  curiosity  in  the 
affair  of  your  salvation ; look  around  the  Apostolic  Church, 
in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the  Apostles  yet  hold  their 
places,  and  in  which  their  own  authentic  letters  are  yet  re- 
cited, sounding  the  voice,  and  representing  the  face  of  each 
one  of  them.  If  Achaia  is  near  you,  you  have  Corinth;  if 
you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you  have  Philippi  and 
Tliessalonica ; if  you  can  trip  it  to  Asia,  you  have  Ephesus ; 
if  you  are  in  the  neighborhood  of  Italy,  you  have  Rome, 
whence  we,  too,  have  authority  in  readiness.  How  happy  is 
that  Church  upon  which  the  Apostles  poured  the  whole  doc- 
trine with  their  blood;  where  Peter  shared  the  passion  ot 
the  Lord,  where  Paul  was  crowned !”  And  (2)  Nero  first  shed 
blood  upon  the  growing  faith  in  Rome.  Then  was  Peter  led 
by  another,  when  he  was  fastened  to  the  cross.”  Again  (3), 
44  Let  us  hear  what  the  Romans  say,  they  to  whom  Peter 
and  Paul  left  the  Gospel  sealed  with  their  blood.”  And  (4) 
44  Nor  does  it  matter  anything  t q those  whom  John  immersed 
in  the  Jordan,  and  Peter  in  the  Tiber.”  Eusebius,  in  B.  2,  c. 
24,  gives  us  a very  clear  testimony  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth, 
who  died  :n  the  second  century,  and  is  often  confounded 
with  the  Areopagite.  In  an  epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  holy 
bishop  says,  “ By  a certain  impulse  of  prudence,  you  have 
placed  in  one  spot  Peter  and  Paul,  who  first  brought  the 
Romans  and  the  Corinthians  into  the  Church  of  Christ.  For 
both,  when  they  had  founded  our  Church  of  Corinth,  and 
yours  of  Rome,  and  had  indoctrinated  our  souls  and  yours 
with  the  same  doctrinal  precepts,  at  the  same  time  suffered 
martyrdom.”  Hegesippus,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the 
.second  century,  and  must  have  known  some  of  the  disciples 
of  the  Apostles,  says  (5),  “ And  returning,  he  came  back  to 
the  city,  and  being  taken  by  the  persecutors,  was  sentenced 
to  the  cross.  He  requested  that  he  might  be  affixed  to  the 
cross  head  downwards,  because  he  was  unworthy  to  suffer 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  Son  of  God;  this  having  been 
granted,  either  that  the  prediction  of  Christ  might  be  fulfill- 

(1)  Prescriptions,  c.  26.  (2)  Scorpiace , c.  15.  (8)  MarcUm,  b.  4,  c.  5.  (4)  Baptirtn. 

(5)  Destruction  of  Jerusalem , c.  1. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


11 


ed,  or  because  a persecutor  is  not  unwilling  to  allow  an  in- 
crease of  torture,  lie  was  killed  by  tlie  cross,  and  Paul  by 
the  sword.”  Julian  the  Apostate  may  also  be  cited  in  favor 
of  our  thesis,  for  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  tells  us,  B.  10,  that 
Julian  had  conjectured  that  St.  John  was  led  to  proclaim 
the  Divinity  of  Jesus  “ because  lie  iound  that  a large  number 
of  persons,  in  many  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy  ” believed  in  it,  r 
and  because  lie  had  heard  “ that  the  monuments  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  though  secretly  indeed,  were  venerated. **  To  which 
assertion  of  Julian,  St.  Cyril  answers,  “ John  was  not  led 
to  say  that  Christ  was  God  by  having  seen  the  veneration 
paid  to  the  monuments  of  Peter  and  Paul.”  St*  Jerome  (1) 
tells  us,  “After  his  episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  and 
his  preaching  to  those  of  the  dispersion  who  were  con- 
verted from  Circumcision,  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia,  Simon  Peter  came  to  Rome,  in  the 
second  year  of  Claudius,  to  defeat  Simon  Magus,  and  there 
kept  his  priestly  chair  for  twenty-five  years,  until  the  last 
year  of  Nero,  that  is,  until  the  fourteenth.”  And  again  (2), 

“ I am  joined  in  communion  with  your  Blessedness,  that  is, 
with  the  Chair  of  Peter,  following  no  other,  unless  Christ, 
before  you.  Upon  that  rock  I know  the  Church  is  built.” 
Optatus  of  Milevi  (3)  says,  “ There  is  a unique  Chair,  the  first 
in  prerogatives.  In  it  first  sat  Peter,”  etc.  St.  Cyprian  (4) 
writes  to  Rome  that  liis  opponents  “ dare  to  have  recourse 
to  the  Chair  of  Peter,  to  carry  to  the  principal  Church,  from 
which  sacerdotal  unity  is  derived,  letters  from  schismatics 
and  the  profane,  not  reflecting  that  there  they  are  Romans 
(whose  faith  was  praised  by  the  Apostle),  to  whom  deceit 
can  have  no  approach.”  St.  Augustine  (5)  thus  urges  a here- 
tic, “ Even  though  all,  throughout  the  world,  were  such  as 
you  vainly  declare,  what  has  been  done  for  you  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  in  which  Peter  sat,  and  in  which  Anasta- 
sius  now  presides  ? Or  by  Jerusalem,  where  James  sat,  and 
where  to-day  John  rules  ? We  are  joined  in  Catholic  unity 
to  these,  from  whom  your  nefarious  frenzy  has  separated 

(1)  Ecclesiastical  Writers , art.  Peter.  (2)  Epist . 57. 

(8)  Against  Parmenian , b.  2.  (4)  Epist.  56,  to  Pope  SL  Cornelius. 

(6)  Against  the  Letters  of  Petilian  the  Donat ist,  b.  2,  c.  61. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


12 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


you.”  St  Prosper  (1)  sings,  “ Whatever  Pome,  the  see  of 
Peter,  does  not  hold  by  arms,  she  acquires  by  religion,  being 
made  the  source  of  pastoral  honor  for  the  world.”  St.  Epipha- 
nius  (2)  says  that  “ Peter  and  Paul  were  the  first  Bishops 
and  Apostles  of  Rome.”  Paul  Orosius  (3)  speaking  of  Claudi- 
us, says  that,  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  “ Peter,  Apostle 

of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  came  to  Rome From  that  time 

there  began  to  be  Christians  in  Rome.”  Lactantius  (4)  says 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  that  “ they  predicted  all  which 
Peter  and  Paul  taught  in  Rome,  and  that  preaching  re- 
mained fixed  in  memory.  In  it,  among  other  wonders,  they 
declared  that  it  would  soon  come  to  pass  that  God  would 
send  a ruler  who  would  punish  the  Jews  and  level  their 

cities  to  the  ground And  so,  after  their  demise,  Nero 

having  put  them  to  death,  Vespasian  destroyed  the  Jewish 
race  and  name.”  St.  Athanasius  (5)  writes  that  " Peter  also, 
who  had  lain  hidden  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  and  the  Apostle 
j’aul,  who  had  escaped  in  a basket,  when  they  understood 
they  were  to  be  martyred  at  Rome,  did  not  refuse  the  jour-, 
ney,  but  rather  undertook  it  with  joy.”  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen  (6)  says  that  “Peter  and  Paul  gained  their  vic- 
tory in  Rome.”  The  poet  Dracontius  (7)  tells  us,  “ In 
order  that  Rome  might  not  any  longer  ignore  the  benefits 
of  Christ,  Peter  obeyed  the  divine  commands,  and,  in  com- 
pany with  Paul,  went  thither.”  These  testimonies,  none 
later  than  the  fifth  century,  and  most  of  them  of  an  earlier 
date,  ought  to  convince  any  candid  mind  of  the  historical 
reality  of  St.  Peter’s  residence  in  Rome.  Scarcely  one  of  the 
cited  authors  has  not  spoken  to  the  same  purpose  in  dozens 
of  other  passages,  and  we  have  quoted  but  a few  of  the 
many  who  are  available  for  our  thesis.  The  reader  may 
consult  the  following,  also  not  later,  any  of  them,  than  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifth  century,  and  most  of  them  of  the  fourth. 
St  Ambrose  ( Sermon  on  Basilicas ),  St.  John  Chrysostom 
(2 d HomVy  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ),  Prudentius  (12 th  Hymn 
on  the  Martyrdom  of  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul ),  Sulpicius  Severus 

(1)  Poem  on  “ The  Ungrateful."  (2)  Heretic*.  27.  (3)  D.  7,  c.  4. 

(4)  Divine  Institutions , b.  4,  c.  11.  (5)  Apologu  for  his  Flight.  (6)  Poem  XIT 

(7)  On  God , b.  3,  r.  227,  etc. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ROAIA  A PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER.  13 

( History , 6.  2,  c.  28),  St  Paidmus  (Poem  19,  v.  55,  dec .),  St, 
Maximus  of  Turin  (>&rraa7i  61). 

We  would  now  draw  attention  to  the  ancient  Catalogues 
of  the  Homan  Pod  tiffs.  The  first  chronologist  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  Roman  succession  was  Hegesippus,  a converted 
Jew,  who,  about  the  year  170,  came  to  Rome  for  instruction, 

• and  while  there  drew  up  a catalogue  of  the  Popes.  “ While 
I was  at  Rome,”  he  says  (1),  “ I composed  a succession  down 
to  Anicetus,  to  whom  Eleutherius  was  deacon.  To  Anicetus 
succeeded  Soter,  and  after  him  came  Eleutherius.”  It  was 
from  this  Hegesippus  that  Eusehius  derived  his  catalogue, 
and  at  its  head  we  read  the  name  of  St.  Peter.  The  Angli- 
can Pearson  asks,  when  speaking  of  Hegesippus  (2),  why  he 
arranged  this  succession,  more  than  that  of  any  other  city, 
unless  it  meant  something.  Towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  St.  Irenaeus  also  wrote  a catalogue,  and  in  it  St. 
Peter  holds  the  first  place.  The  authority  of  St.  Irenaeus 
is  great  indeed,  for  his  preceptor  was  St.  Polycarp,  a disci- 
ple of  St.  John.  He  tells  us  (3)  that  “the  Blessed  Apostles, 
founding  and  instructing  the  Church,  delivered  the  epis- 
copal administration  to  Linus  ” The  third  catalogizer  was 
Tertullian  (4),  who  defied  the  heretics  of  his  day  to  prove 
the  Apostolic  origin  of  their  sects  as  did  the  Roman  Church 
her  descent  from  St.  Peter.  “Let  the  heretics,”  he  says, 
“ publish  the  origins  of  their  churches  ; let  them  display 
the  order  of  their  bishops  in  a flowing  succession  from  the 
beginning,  so  that  (we  may  see  whether)  their  first  bishop 
had,  for  author  and  predecessor,  an  Apostle  or  one  of  the 
Apostolic  men.  For  in  that  manner  does  the  Roman 
Church  show  Clement,  ordained  by  Peter.”  The  fourth 
chronologist  was  St.  Hippolytus,  bishop  of  Porto,  at  the 
end  of  the  second,  and  beginning  of  the  tli.rd  century  (5). 

(1)  In  Eusebius,  h 4.  c.  11.  (2)  Succession  of  the  First  liishops  of  Home. 

(8)  Here,  it  % />.  3,  c.  3.  (4)  Prescriptions,  c.  32. 

(5)  In  the  year  1842  there  wus  i’seovered  in  the  monastery  of  Mt.  Attics  an  anonymous 
work  entitled  PhUosuphumemt , *hich  was  declared  by  Jacobi,  Bunsen,  and  the  Auglican 
canon  Wordsworth,  to  be  from  the  cand  of  this  saint  and  martyr.  The  discovery  was  of 
importance  to  the  adversaries  of  Rome,  for  the  I'hihmrphumcni&t  was  a bitter  enemy  c f 
the  Roman  Pontiffs  Zephyrinus  an  t Callixtus.  But  he  was  soon  proved  to  have  been  a 
very  different  man  from  the  holv  bishop  of  Porto,  and  to  have  been  a heretic  of  the  third 
century.  One  of  the  most  erudite  invent  (rations  in  the  matter  was  accomplished  by  Prof. 
Torquato  Armelllni,  of  the  Roman  College,  and  published  in  1862.  We  allude  to  the  Z7ii- 
Umphumena , because  of  the  following  passage  in  favor  of  our  thesis.  In  the  6th  Book,  the 
author,  speaking  of  Simon  Magus,  says  tlmt  he  “ betook  himself  to  Rome,  and  opposed  him- 
aelf  to  the  Apostles ; he  deceived  many  with  his  magical  arts,  but  against  him  Peter  mode 
much  resistance.” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


14  STUPES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORt'. 

His  testimony  is  found  in  the  catalogue  known  as  the  Bu- 
cherian,  from  the  name  of  its  first  editor,  and  as  the  Liberian, 
from  the  name  of  the  last  PontiflF  mentioned  in  it.  This 
catalogue  was  composed  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and,  according  to  the  Protestant  Mommsen,  consists 
of  two  distinct  parts,  one  ending  with  Pope  Pontianus  (y. 
235),  and  another  finishing  with  Liberius.  As  we  know, 
says  Mommsen  (1),  that  the  catalogue  of  St.  Hippolytus 
ended  with  Pontianus,  we  may  infer  that  it  is  the  basis  of 
the  Liberian.  This  document  begins  with  these  words, 
“ During  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Ctesar,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
suffered,  on  the  8th  of  the  Calends  of  April,  in  the  Consu- 
late  of  the  two  Gemini ; and  after  His  ascension,  the  Most 
Blessed  Peter  assumed  the  episcopacy.  From  that  time,  is 
shown  by  succession  who  was  bishop,  how  many  years  he 
ruled,  and  under  what  emperor.”  After  the  Liberian  cata- 
logue comes  that  of  Eusebius,  in  the  Chronicle  and  in  the 
History ; then  that  of  Optatus,  ending  with  Pope  Siricius  ; 
that  of  St.  Jerome,  as  a continuation  of  Eusebius;  that  of 
St.  Augustine,  terminating  with  Anastasius ; that  of  Victor, 
edited  by  Scaliger ; that  of  St.  Prosper,  published  by  Labbe  ; 
that  of  Marcellin  ; that  of  the  time  of  St.  Sylvester;  that  of 
Felix  IV.  ,*  that  of  the  Vatican,  in  the  time  of  St.  Gregory 
the  Great.  The  more  modern  ones  we  may  omit.  In  all 
of  these  documents,  authentic  as  any  ever  handled  by  his- 
torian or  critic,  the  name  of  St.  Peter  invariably  heads  the 
list  of  Roman  Pontiffs. 

The  traveller  who  has  visited  Rome  with  an  eye,  not  bent 
upon  mere  sources  of  pleasure  or  of  distraction,  but  direct- 
ed to  what  cau  instruct  and  improve  the  intellectual  man, 
must  have  been  impressed  with  the  tradition,  so  vivid,  uni- 
versal, and  absolutely  held  by  the  people,  of  the  Roman 
Pontificate  of  St.  Peter.  In  a dissertation  of  this  kind,  we 
can  do  no  more,  at  best,  than  allude  to  the  monuments  of 
the  Eternal  City,  which,  from  the  earliest  days  of  Christi- 
anity, have  attested  and  perpetuated  this  tradition  (2). 

{DHUtoi'ico-PhiloloQicat  Dissertations  of  the  Royal  Saron  Society  of  Sciences,  vol.'  I . 

< 2 ) In  1804,  the  learned  Jesuit  theologian,  the  late  Prof.  John  Perrone,  published  a little 
book  designed  for  popular,  rather  than  for  learned  people’s  use,  entitled  *‘.s7.  Peter  in  Rome .” 
Although  meant  merely  as  an  antidote  to  the  poisons,  then  as  now,  being  disseminated  in 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAIN*  PETER.  1:> 

Christian  Koine  has  ever  been  an  intellectual,  as  well  as  a 
religious,  city.  Nor  has  its  intellectual  culture  been  con- 
fined to  the  ecclesiastical  element  of  its  population  ; its  liter- 
ary and  artistic  history — and  it  is  fuller  than  that  of  any 
other  city  in  the  world — shows  that  the  Roman  laity,  even 
though  guided  and  encouraged  by  the  clergy,  have  ever  been  ! 
capable  of,  as  they  were  always  inclined  to,  independent 
investigation.  And  ye  t this  Roman  laity,  fully  as  firmly  as 
any  of  the  clergy  could  wish,  have  always  believed  in  the 
authenticity  of  the  traditions  connected  with  their  “ holy 
places,”  as  they  call,  by  excellence,  the  spots  sanctified  by 
the  blood  of  the  Apostles.  Commencing  at  our  own  day.  and 
going  back  to  the  time  when  Constantine  gave  freedom  to 
the  church,  we  find  a constant  succession  of  Roman  writers 
proclaiming  this  belief.  Nay,  further  back  than  that  happy 
day,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  persecutions  of  the  second 
century,  we  hear  Caius  praising  the  glories  of  the  Vatican 
and  the  Ostian  Way.  Nor  are  the  Romans  ever  disturbed 
in  their  proud  confidence  of  possessing  the  relics  of  the 
Apostles,  in  the  glory  that  the  Roman  soil  was  moistened 
with  their  blood.  No  other  place  ever  claims  to  have  been 
the  site  of  their  martyrdom ; no  other  place  boasts  of  guard- 
ing their  bodies.  On  the  contrary,  from  all  lands  there  is 
a constant  succession  of  pilgrimages,  on  the  part  of  priest 
and  layman,  king  and  peasant,  the  learned  and  the  illiterate, 
to  the  tombs  of  the  Vpostles.  In  the  second  century,  we 
behold  Polycarp,  Hegesippus,  Justin,  Irenaeus  ; in  the 
third,  Origen,  Te nullum,  Peter  of  Alexandria.  The  writ- 
ings of  the  first  three  centuries,  Pagan  as  well  as  Christian, 
frequently  attest  the  seizure  of  persons  known  as  Christians 
from  the  fact  of  their  being  seen  at  prayer  in  the  holy 
places.  There  was  Mauius.an  African,  who,  under  Numerian, 
was  taken  “at  the  tombs  of  the  Apostles  ” in  the  year  184, 
as  we  read  in  the  ancient  Marty rology.  Sts.  Marius  and  | 
Martha,  with  their  sons,  Audifax  and  Abacus,  Persians, 

the  fair  land  of  Italy,  there  is  much  in  it  to  repay  the  siuaent  for  its  perusal.  The  nutl.or 
de  rotes  i-onsiderable  space  to  the  arehtcoIoB’ioal  proofs  of  St.  Peter’s  presence  In  Rome.  :uid 
OfwWs  particular  attention  to  the  sarcophagi,  cc.ncterlal  vims,  inscriptions,  Ac.,  which  n. 
i>  studied  in  the  catacombs  and  various  museums.  These  objects  have  an  eloquence  pecul- 
l%r  to  themselves,  and  while  primarily  serving  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the  devout  Catholic, 
necessarily  command  the  notice  of  the  archteo legist,  and  the  student  of  history. 


Digitized  by  AjOOQie 


16 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


were  captured  while  “at  prayer/’  and  when  interrogated  by 
Claudius,  they  declared  that  they  had  **  come  to  pray  to 
the  servants  and  Apostles  of  Jesns  Christ.”  St.  Paternus, 
coming  from  Alexandria,  was  arrested  by  the  tribune  under 
the  same  circumstances  (1).  So  were  Sts.  Tranquillinus 
and  Zoe  (2).  And  this  devotion  to  the  tombs  of  the  Apostles 
has  never  grown  torpid  in  the  course  of  time.  While  in 
the  early  ages,  we  discover  an  emulation  in  the  work  of 
praising  the  Apostles.  R^ad  the  words  of  Athanasius,  Greg- 
ory, Chrysostom,  Germanus,  in  the  East,  and  of  Cyprian, 
Augustine,  Fulgentius.  Hilary,  Prudentius.  Isidore,  in  the 
West ; we  find  that  the  succeeding  centuries  are  no  less  fer- 
vent in  the  task.  It  was  this  firm  persuasion  that  the  Ro- 
man Pontiff  was  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  that  caused 
Constantine,  Theodosius,  Gratian,  and  Valentinian,  to  give 
such  splendid  proofs  of  affectionate  veneration  for  the  Holy 
See.  Equally  devout  to  Rome,  because  equally  persuaded 
of  her  splendid  prerogatives,  were  Clodoveus,  Pepin,  and 
Charlemagne,  of  the  Franks;  Otho  and  Henry  in  the  new 
Empire  ; Ina,  Offa.  and  Aidulphus,  among  the  Saxons  ; De- 
metrius of  Russia  ; Bertrand  of  Provence;  Aiphonsus  ol 
Portugal.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  enumerate  the  more 
modern  sovereigns  who  distinguished  themselves  by  theii 
veneration  for  the  “ Confession  of  St.  Peter.”  And  as  for  pil- 
grimages to  the  Roman  shrines,  their  antiquity  and  univer- 
sality are  too  well  known  to  need  more  than  allusion  (3). 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  See 
gave  rise  to  the  opinion  that  St.  Peter  was  its  founder.  In 
that  case,  the  ambition  is  certainly  as  old  as  the  See  itself, 
as  is  shown  by  the  testimonies  already  adduced.  But,  if 
Rome  propagated  and  nourished  tha!  opinion,  when  there 
was  no  historical  foundation  for  it,  how  comes  it  that,  in 
the  olden  times,  there  was  no  one  to  rebuke  such  audacity? 
Not  one  of  the  ancient  heretics,  so  hotly  pressed  by  the  au- 
thority and  prestige  of  the  name  of  St.  Peter,  ever  alleged 
that  Rome  had  no  right  to  invoke  tli  t name.  Not  one  of 
the  ancient  patriarchates  ever  presumed  to  dispute  Rome's 

(1)  Bollandists;  v.  4,  August.  (2)  Idem , r.  2.  July . 

(3)  Tbe  old  ScLron  Chronielr  remarks,  as  an  extraordinary  fact,  that.  In  the  year  689,  no 
pilgrims  went  to  Rome,  and  Alfred’s  letters  had  to  be  sent  by  messengers. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER.  17 

precedence  on  the  ground  that  her  Pontiff  was  not  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter.  Even  the  proud  church  of  Constanti- 
nople, in  her  most  arrogant  moments,  never  contested  the 
historical  claims  of  Rome,  as  deduced  from  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles.  In  the  height  of  their  frenzy,  some  of  the  Byzan- 
tine schismatics  held  that  Rome  had  lost  her  supremacy  on 
account  of  the  “ heresy  ” touching  the  Holy  Ghost ; certain 
others  claimed  that  Rome’s  jurisdiction  had  accrued  to  the 
" New  Rome,”  on  the  transfer  thereto  of  the  imperial  govern- 
ment. But  none  of  the  would-be  “cecumenicals”  ever  alleg- 
ed that  Rome  had  falsely  presented  herself  as  heiress  of  St. 
Peter’s  authority.  Again,  it  is  a noteworthy  fact  that,  of 
all  the  noted  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries,  who  attest 
St.  Peter’s  coming  to  Rome,  nearly  all  are  Orientals ; very 
few  belong  to  the  West,  still  fewer  are  Romans.  Orientals 
were  Ignatius,  Papias,  the  Author  of  the  “Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions,” Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Hegesippus,  Irenaeus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Caius,  Origen,  Firmilian,  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea,  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  Of  the  West- 
ern testimonies,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Arnobius,  and  Optatus, 
were  Africans  ; Lactantius  may  have  been  an  Italian,  but  he 
was  certainly  no  Roman ; Philaster  of  Brescia  was  probably 
a Spaniard.  There  remains  then,  among  all  these  witnesses, 
only  one  who  was  certainly  a Roman,  Pope  Clement  I.  This 
preponderance  of  foreign  testimony  would  certainly  indi- 
cate some  other  origin  than  Roman  ambition  for  the  asser- 
tion we  defend. 

Many  historical  writers  have  lamented  the  fact  of  their 
being  so  frequently  obliged  to  wrestle  with  difficulties  of 
chronology.  Few  suffer  so  much  from  this  matter  as  he 
who  devotes  himself  to  ecclesiastical  history.  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  chronological  mysteries  of  the  Old  Dispensation, 
one  is  taken  aback  on  being  confronted  by  such,  at  the  very 
outset  of  one’s  investigations  into  the  history  of  the  New. 
And  yet,  because  learned  critics  cannot  satisfy  him  as  to  the 
precise  year  in  which  Christ  was  born,  the  student  does  not 
rush  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Word  did  not  become  man. 
So,  in  the  matter  of  the  present  question  of  St.  Peter’s  Roman 
Pontificate,  our  adversaries  should  not  claim  a verdict  be- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


18 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


cause  our  witnesses  differ  as  to  the  date  of  St.  Peter’s  arrival 
in  the  Eternal  City.  It  is  true  that  Lactantius  asserts  that 
the  Apostle  entered  Rome  “ during  the  reign  of  Nero  ; ” that 
Orosius  assigns  as  the  date,  “ the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 
Claudius  ; ” that  St.  Jerome  puts  it  down  as  “ the  second 
year  of  Claudius  ; ’*  that  the  Book  of  Dotes  ascribes  it  to  the 
fourth  year  of  the  same.  But  the  dissension  among  these 
authors,  Lactantius  excepted,  is  more  apparent  than  real. 
Is  not  the  “ second  year  of  Claudius  ” of  St.  Jerome  very 
easily  reconciled  with  the  “ beginning  of  the  reign”  assigned 
by  Orosius  (1)  ? The  erudite  have  no  confidence  in  the 
chronological  authority  of  the  Book  of  Dotes.  As  for  Lac- 
tantius, he  is  alone  in  his  opinion,  but  he  is  as  firm  as  any 
other  author  in  the  assertion  that  St.  Peter  was  martyred 
at  Rome.  His  words  are  (2),  “ During  the  reign  of  Nero, 
Peter  came  to  Rome,  and  having  performed,  by  the  power 
of  God,  certain  miracles,  he  converted  many  to  justice,  and 
established  for  God  a faithful  and  permanent  temple.  When 
Nero  heard  of  this,  and  learned  that,  not  only  at  Rome, 
but  everywhere,  multitudes  were  abandoning  the  worship  of 
the  idols  and,  despising  antiquity,  were  passing  to  the  new 
religion,  execrable  and  cruel  tyrant  as  he  was,  he  rushed  to 
the  destruction  of  the  heavenly  temple,  and  to  the  abolition 
of  justice,  and  becoming  the  first  persecutor  of  the  servants 
of  God,  he  fastened  Peter  to  the  cross,  and  also  killed 
Paul.” 

Claude  de  Sauwaise  (3j  contended  that  St.  Peter  could 
never  have  been  in  Rome,  because  St.  Paul  declares  that 
he  himself  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  while  St.  Peter 
was  accredited  to  the  children  of  the  Circumcision.  Alexan- 
dre allows  St.  Jerome  to  answer  this  difficulty  Commenting 
upon  the  text,  Got.,  c.  2,  r.  7,  8,  and  9,  the  holy  doctor 
says,  “ Did  Peter  therefore,  when  he  met  any  Gentiles,  not 
lead  them  to  the  faith  ? And  if  Paul  encountered  any  of  these 

(1)  The  arrival  of  SI.  Peter  In  Home  during  the  second  year  of  Claudius.  Is  assfitwl  by 
Eusebius  (Chi on  ivh  \ St.  Jer-rn » • < innt h Writer*.  A Mo  of  Vienne  ( Mnrt  i/mbum) . with 
them  agree  those  who  say  the  \;m  Ce  was  martyred  in  Nero’s  14th  year,  after  ruling  for  25 
years,  riz..  Damasus,  Isidore,  Bede,  and  others. 

(2)  Deaths  of  tin  Penn  uhn:. 

(3)  A famous  Fretieh  Protestant  scholar  of  the  17th  century.  His  “Defense  of  Charles 
l.,“  written  to  please  Charlt*s  II.,  then  a refugee  in  Holland,  was  the  occasion  of  Milton’s 
Issuing  h;s  “Defence  of  the  English  People.” 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


19 


of  the  Circumcision,  did  he  not  impel  them  to  the  Baptism 
of  Christ?  This  question  is  answered,  if  we  say  that  eacli 
(Apostle)  received  a principal  commission  in  regard  to  the 
•Jews and  Gentiles ; so  that  they  who  defended  the  Law  might 
have  one  to  follow,  and  they  who  preferred  Grace  to  the 
Law,  might  not  want  a teacher,  and  a forerunner.  How- 
ever, they  had  this  in  common,  that  they  should  establish 
a Church  for  Christ  from  among  all  peoples.  For  we  read 
that  the  Gentile  Cornelius  was  baptized  by  St.  Peter,  and 
that  Christ  was  very  often  preached  by  Paul  in  the  syna- 
gogue of  the  Jews.”  And  does  not  St.  Peter  himself  answer 
the  objection  of  Saumaise  when  he  tells  his  colleagues  in 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  that  God  had  decreed  that  the 
Gentiles  should  hear  the  Gospel  by  his  mouth  (1)  ? And  even 
though  St.  Peter  had  been  commissioned  to  preach  only  to 
the  Jews,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  did  not  go  to  Rome. 
We  know  that  the  Eternal  City  contained,  at  that  time,  a 
large  Jewish  population  (2) ; why  should  not  St.  Peter  have 
gone  there  to  evangelize  it  ? But  the  special  credential  to 
the  Jews  given  to  St.  Peter  cannot  be  understood  as  imply- 
ing an  exclusion  of  jurisdiction  over  the  Gentiles.  However, 
as  this  matter  does  not,  properly  speaking,  pertain  to  the 
historical  domain,  we  shall  dismiss  it  with  the  remark  that 
no  Christian  denies  the  universal  jurisdiction  of  our  Lord, 
and  yet  He  is  specially  designated  as  “ Minister  of  the 
Circumcision.” 

We  come  now  to  the  nature  of  the  office  exercised  by  our 
Apostle  at  Rome.  Samuel  Basnage,  Leclerc,  and  very  many 
other  Protestant  authors,  contend  that, while  it  is  certain  that 
St.  Peter  died  at  Rome,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  he  was  bish- 
op of  that  city.  Some  indeed  hold  that  lie  exercised  €*pi.s- 
copal  authority,  but  they  uphold,  on  the  part  of  St.  Paul,  a 

(1)  Ads.  15,  7. 

(2)  Josephus  tells  us,  />.  17,  r.  12,  that  after  the  death  of  Herod,  when  an  embassy  of  the 
“ Libertine  ” synagogue  at  Jerusalem  was  sent  to  Rome,  “ more  than  eight  thousand  of  the 
Jews  in  the  city  received  them.”  Philo,  in  his  Ltyntum  l<>  ( Yiimx,  testifies  that  Augustus 
allowed  the  Jews  1 6 exclusively  occupy  a large  quarter  In  the  city.  Tacitus  says  that,  in 
the  sixth  year  of  Tiberius,  four  thousand  Jews  were  carried  to  the  island  of  Sardinia,  and 
the  rest  ordered  to  leave  Italy  unless,  by  a certain  day,  they  abandoned  their  religion. 
After  this  expulsion,  the  Jews  soon  returned  to  Rome,  for  after  the  death  of  Sejanus,  their 
enemy,  Tiberius  favored  them,  t'nder  Claudius,  they  were  so  numerous  that  Dio  savs  the 
emperor  feared  to  use  force  against  them  ; he  finally  did  exj**l  them,  hut  the  edict  vvas  re- 
voked. perhaps  by  himself,  perhaps  by  Nero,  and  under  the  latter  emperor,  they  were  so 
secure  and  bappy,  that  they  could  publicly  celebrate  their  festivals.  See  Persius : Satire  5. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


20 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


joint  jurisdiction.  Others  go  so  far  as  to  assert  the  incom- 
patibility of  the  Apostolate  with  a tenure  of  a particular 
episcopal  see.  There  would  be  some  truth  in  this  last  as- 
sertion, if  we  did  not  know  that  when  St.  Peter’s  Apostolic 
duties  called  him  from  his  special  diocese,  he  left  its  care  to 
a vicar  (1).  In  order  to  prove  the  Roman  episcopacy  of  St. 
Peter,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  beyond  the  testimonies  al- 
ready adduced  to  prove  his  residence  in  Rome,  for  they 
nearly  all  speak  of  him  as  Rome’s  first  bishop.  But  with 
regard  to  the  joint  jurisdiction  claimed  for  St.  Paul,  the  as- 
sertion merits  special  consideration.  Many  of  the  fathers 
seem  to  regard  St  Paul  as  the  equal  of  St.  Pete  ; and,  to 
this  day,  the  Roman  Pontiff  issues  his  decrees,  indulgences, 
<tc.,  “By  the  authority  of  the  Blessed  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  and  our  own.”  Again,  on  the  seals  of  the  Pontifical 
Diplomas,  we  always  find  the  effigies  of  the  two  Apostles, 
with  no  discrimination  as  to  the  post  of  honor ; sometimes 
one  is  on  the  right,  sometimes  the  other.  All  these 
things  appear  to  show  a perfect  equality  between  Sts.Peter 
and  Paul.  Indeed,  there  have  been  Catholic  writers  who 
contended  that  St.  Paul  was  a colleague  of  St.  Peter  in  the 
Roman  Episcopacy.  We  remark,  before  we  proceed  to  an 
analysis  of  these  objections,  that  while  some  Catholic  au- 
thors have  held  that  St  Paul  exercised  in  Rome  a co-juris- 
diction with  St.  Peter,  all  agree  in  the  teaching  of  Pope 
Innocent  X.,  when,  in  1647,  he  condemned  as  heretical 
the  proposition  asserting  tc  a perfect  equality  between  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  without  a subordination  and  subjection 
of  St.  Paul  to  St.  Peter,  in  the  supreme  power  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Universal  Church”  (2).  If  we  carefully 
attend  to  the  manifest  sense  of  the  passages  of  the  fathers 
which  are  alleged  to  assert  the  equality  of  the  two  Apostles, 
we  shall  find  that  they  do  not  militate  for  our  opponents. 

(1)  Epipiiamts  : 7/r  resaw,  27. 

(2)  The  First  declaration  of  St.  Paul's  entire  equality  with  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  been 

made  by  Claude  of  Turin,  aSpnnir.nl,  seated  in  that  episcopal  chair  In  K23,  by  Louis  the  Com- 
pliant. ’ This  piclmc  is  pr  *is<*l  by  end  Mosheim  as  one  of  th<»  forerunners  of  Prot- 

estantism, and  in  culled  bv  them  the  founder  of  the  Waldeases  of  Piedmont.  But  if  Claude 
left  uny  followers  in  the  Piedmontese  vsdevs,  history  makes  no  mention  of  them  until  1185. 
Afluln,  when  Pope  Lucius  III.  condemned  the  Vsldensian  errors,  he  made  no  mention  of 
the  chief  doctrines  of  Claude,  NVstnrlaiilsni.il ml  Adoptianlsm.  However,  we  do  not  deny 
that  Claude  was  a heretic;  for,  besides  these  t vo  errors  he  made  war  on  devotion  to  the  Salute 
and  declared  that  only  a virtuous  priest  could  validly  officiate. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


HOMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETEB. 


21 


Thus  St.  Irenaeus  (1)  is  introduced,  saying  that  “ The  Roman 
Church  was  instituted  and  founded  by  the  holy  Apostles 
Peter  and  Paul.”  But  how  does  it  follow  from  this  that  St. 
Paul  was  a co-governor  of  that  church,  and  much  less  of  the 
Church  Universal  ? St.  Epiphanius  (2)  tells  us  that  “at  Rome 
Peter  and  Paul  were  the  first  Apostles,  as  well  as  Bishops.” 
Alexandre  concedes  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  if  it  be  taken 
as  regarding  the  local  episcopacy  of  Rome,  and  that  Epi- 
phanius spoke  only  of  that,  and  not  of  the  government  of 
the  whole  Church,  is  evident  from  the  saint’s  object  at  the 
time  he  wrote  the  words.  He  wished  to  show  that  the  par- 
ticular Church  ol  Rome  had  always  preserved  the  purity  of 
doctrine,  and  that,  to  learn  what  was  sound  teaching,  it 
was  only  necessary  to  recur  to  Rome,  which  had  been  indoc- 
trinated by  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul.  St.  Paul  may  have  been  a co- 
bishop in  Rome  with  St.  Peter,  on  account  of  his  Apostolate, 
which  certainly  gave  episcopal  right  and  power,  but  there  is 
nothing  in  ihe  quoted  passage  of  Epiphanius  to  show  that 
St.  Paul  was  ordinary  in  Rome,  much  less  that  he  shared 
the  supreme  Pontificate.  Nay,  the  context  shows  that  he 
regarded  St.  Peter  as  the  ordinary,  for  he  particularly  notes 
that  St.  Clement  was  consecrated  by  St.  Peter.  And  in  an- 
other place  (3),  Epiphanius  deems  St.  Paul  deserving  of 
eulogy,  since  “Peter,  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  who  was 
worthy  of  receiving  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom,  gave  him  the 
right  hand.”  And  the  holy  father  must  have  been  conver- 
sant with  the  history  of  Novatianism  and  Donatisin,  aud  one 
of  the  most  salient  facts  in  the  annals  of  these  heresies,  is 
the  persuasion  of  the  Romans  that  no  diocese  could  have 
two  ordinaries.  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  has  also  been  cited 
in  favor  of  St.  Paul’s  co-papacy,  it  being  alleged  that  he  al- 
ways speaks  of  the  two  apostles  as  “ Heads”  of  the  Church. 
This  is  uot  correct.  The  saint  uses  the  word  prostata , prel- 
ate”; and  when  he  speaks  of  St.  Peter  by  himself,  he  terms 
him  protoprostata,  “ first  prelate.”  St.  John  Chrysostom  (4) 
is  also  brought  forward,  since  he  styles  both  Apostles  the 
“eyes  of  Rome,”  and  the  “ leaders  of  the  saints.”  But  cer- 

(1)  Heresies,  c.  3.  (2)  Heresies,  27.  (3)  Ancorato.  (4)  HornUy  82,  on  Epist.  Rom. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


22 


STUDIES  IN  CHUltCH  HISTORY. 


tainly  there  is  here  no  implication  of  equal  authority.  We 
might  call  St.  Gregory  VII.  and  St.  Peter  Damian  the  ‘‘eyes 
of  Rome  ” in  their  day,  or  St.  Francis  de  Sales  and  St.  Jane 
de  Chantal  the  4 eyes  of  Savoy,”  but  no  one  would  accuse  us> 
of  investing  St  Damian  with  the  tiara,  or  of  making  the  holy 
Chantal  bishop  of  Annecy.  Pope  St.  Leo  I.  (1)  calls  Sts. 
Peter  and  Paul  44  the  fathers  and  pastors  of  the  Roman  city,” 
and  rightly,  but  that  lie  did  not  recognize  them  as  equals,  he 
proves  in  the  same  sermon,  when  he  says  that  Rome  “ has- 
been  made  head  of  the  world  through  the  see  of  Blessed 
Peter.” 

The  attempt  to  make  the  Roman  Pontiffs  testify  to  the 
equality  of  authority  in  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul  is  no  more  suc- 
cessful than  the  torturing  of  the  fathers  to  that  end.  It  is 
true  that  the  Popes  style  themselves  44  successors  of  the 
Blessed  Peter  and  Paul,”  but  St.  Bernard,  when  addressing 
his  quondam  disciple,  Eugene  III.,  understood  the  sense  of 
this  expression,  when  he  said  44  Thou  art  the  Prince  of  Bish- 
ops ; thou  art  the  heir  of  the  Apostles.”  When  the  Pontiff 
uses  this  phrase,  he  means  not  a personal  succession,  which 
is  derived  only  fiom  St.  Peter,  but  a succession  to  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  sense  he  is 
sometimes  called  the  successor  of  all  the  Apostles. 

The  Pontiffs  certainly  invoke  the  “authority  of  Sts.  Peter 
and  Paul,”  when  issuing  decrees,  etc.,  but  they  also  invoke 
that  44  of  all  the  saints  in  some  decrees,  the  authority  44  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin”  is  mentioned  in  the  same  preamble. 
Patronage,  and  intercessory  power,  is  here  indicated  ; not 
any  office  of  authority.  In  an  epistle  of  Alexander  II.  (1061- 
1073j,  all  of  these  invocations  occur ; and,  in  the  decrees,  etc., 
of  the  more  modern  Popes,  they  are  all  very  frequently 
read.  It  is  plain  then  that  all,  that  of  God,  of  Mary,  of 
Peter,  of  Paul,  and  of  all  the  saints,  cannot  be  adopted  as 
indicating  the  same  authority.  Had  the  Pontiffs  ever  re- 
garded themselves  as  the  successors  of  St.  Paul  in  the  same 
sense  as  they  were  of  St.  Peter,  they  would  have  treated 
the  former  with  the  same  respect  that  they  gave  the  latter, 
that  is,  not  one  of  them  would  have  presumed  to  take  his. 

(1>  Sermon  l.  on  the  Faint  of  the  .1  fjontle*. 


t 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  PETER. 


23 


name.  There  have  been  five  Popes  called  Paul,  only  one 
Peter.  Again,  if  the  Popes  are  successors  of  St.  Paul,  or 
thought  themselves  such,  the  last  Pope  Paul  would  have 
been  called  not  Paul  V.,  but  Paul  VI. 

The  argument  drawn  from  the  seals  of  Pontifical  docu- 
ments proves  nothing  against  the  undivided  Roman  episco- 
pacy of  St.  Peter.  In  the  first  place,  the  more  important 
documents  are  sealed  with  the  “ ring  of  the  fisherman,’* 
which  bears  only  the  image  of  St.  Peter.  Again,  even  if  the 
Pontifical  seal  were  always  engraved  with  the  image  of  each 
Apostle,  and  with  St.  Paul  always  at  the  right,  there  could 
be  no  conclusion  in  the  premises,  for  the  right  is  not  nec- 
essarily the  post  of  honor  in  the  Church  (1). 

Before  bringing  this  dissertation  to  an  end,  we  would 
draw  attention  to  some  events,  in  the  early  history  of  the 
Church,  which  certainly  show  that  our  ancestors  in  the 
faith  were  fully  persuaded  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  were 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter.  The  first  event  is  the  famous 
Paschal  controversy  which  agitated  the  Church  from  the 
days  of  Pope  Anicetus,  culminated  under  Pope  Victor  I., 
(193-202),  and  was  finally  settled  by  the  Council  of  Nice. 
We  shall  treat  this  matter  in  detail  in  its  proper  place  ; for 
our  present  purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  note  that  the  Roman 
Pontiffs,  following  the  tradition  received  from  St.  Peter, 
wished  that  the  entire  Church  should  celebrate  Easter  on 
the  Sunday  after  the  14th  moon  of  the  Spring  equinox, 
whereas  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  following,  they  alleg- 
ed, the  instructions  of  St.  John,  ate  the  Paschal  lamb  on  the 
evening  of  the  fourteenth  day,  and  kept  the  feast  of  the 
Resurrection  three  days  afterwards.  Hence,  it  came  to  pass 
that,  when  the  fourteenth  happened  to  fall  on  any  other 
day  than  Thursday,  Easter  could  not  be  celebrated  on 
Sunday,  the  proper  day.  The  want  of  uniformity  was 
productive  of  scandal,  for  while  one  church  was  feasting, 
another  was  clad  in  the  habiliments  of  woe.  The  contro- 
versy, as  we  shall  see,  soon  approached  the  region  of  dog- 
ma, and  it  became  necessary  that  Rome  should  interfere  in 

(1)  For  proofs  of  this  non-dlscrimlnatlon  of  riglu  and  left,  in  matter  of  precedency  in  the 
Church,  as  well  as  for  St.  Peter  Damian’s  opinion  as  to  why  St.  Paul  Is  often  placed  at  the 
right,  see  Alkxandrk,  1st  Cent.,  Divert.  IV.,  Prop.  4. 


Digitized  by  Vjooole 


21 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  interests,  not  only  of  uniformity,  but  of  truth.  Pope 
Victor  ordered  Polyerates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  to  convene  a 
Synod  of  all  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor,  and  to  inform  them 
of  the  Pontifical  resolve  to  excommunicate  all  recalcitrants 
in  the  Paschal  matter.  Polycrates  obeyed.  Now,  in  the 
supposition  of  our  adversaries,  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is 
not  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  that,  in  fine,  his  authority 
is  no  greater  than  that  of  any  other  bishop,  Polycrates, 
deeply  attached  to  the  Asiatic  tradition,  would  not  have 
obeyed.  Who  is  this  foreigner,  lie  would  have  properly 
demanded,  in  his  indignation,  that  he  should  dictate  to  us? 
Neither  he,  nor  one  of  his  Synodal s,  protested  against  an 
innovation,  a usurpation.  Some  certainly  yielded,  in  their 
bitterness  of  regret  at  being  obliged  to  abandon  their  tra- 
ditions, to  human  passion,  and  upbraided  the  Pontiff , not 
one  contested  Rome’s  primacy  of  jurisdiction. 

Another  event  in  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  which 
admirably  illustrates  our.  thesis,  is  the  dispute  between 
Pope  St.  Stephen  (253-257)  and  St.  Cyprian,  as  to  the  re- 
baptism of  those  baptized  by  heretics.  St.  Cyprian,  as  we 
shall  see,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  this  subject,  was  support- 
ed in  his  opinion  and  practice,  by  the  African  and  Asiatic 
prelates,  and  the  controversy  was  extremely  bitter.  Yet, 
when  the  Pontiff  decreed  the  validity  of  baptism  conferred 
by  heretics,  provided  that  the  proper  form  had  been  used, 
not  one  of  these  bishops  told  him  to  attend  to  his  diocese  of 
Rome,  and  to  leave  Africa  and  Asia  in  peace.  They  recog- 
nized Pope  Stephen  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  ; they  felt 
with  their  leader,  when*  he  wrote  of  that  Apostle  (1),  “ Upon 
him  alone  He  built  His  Church,  and  ordered  him  to  feed 
His  sheep.  And  although,  after  his  resurrection,  He  gave 
similar  power  to  all  the  Apostles,  and  said,  ‘As  the  Father 
sent  me,  so  I send  you.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ; whose 
sins  you  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them,’  etc.  ; nevertheless, 
that  He  might  manifest  unity,  He  established  one  Chair, 
and,  by  His  authority,  disposed  that  the  origin  of  that  unity 
should  be  derived  from  one.  The  other  Apostles  were  cer- 
tainly that  which  Peter  was,  united  in  an  equal  society  of 

(1)  St.  Cyprian;  Unity  of  the  Church. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ROMAN  PONTIFICATE  OF  SAINT  ‘ PETER. 


25 


Lonor  and  power.  But  the  beginning  takes  its  course  from 
unity.  The  Primacy  is  given  to  Peter,  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  may  be  shown  one,  and  the  Chair  one.  They  are  all 
shepherds  ; but  the  flock  is  shown  to  be  one,  which  is  fed* 
with  unanimous  consent,  by  all  the  Apostles.  . . .Does  he 
believe  that  he  holds  the  faith,  who  does  not  hold  to  this 
unity  of  the  Church  ? Does  he  believe  that  he  is  in  the 
Church,  who  withstands  and  resists  the  Church,  who  de- 
serts the  Chair  of  Peter,  upon  which  the  Church  is  founded  ? ” 
These  fathers  of  Africa  and  Asia,  who  so  sympathized  with 
the  theory  of  St.  Cyprian,  like  those  who  had  fought  se 
strenuously  for  the  perpetuation  of  their  Paschal  tradition, 
never  for  a moment  dreamed  of  contesting  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  because  they  recognized  him  as  the 
occupant  of  “that  Chair  so  celebrated  by  the  Fathers,  who 
have  rivalled  each  other  in  exalting  ‘ the  principality  of  the 
Apostolic  Chair,  the  chief  principality,  the  source  of 
unity,  and  in  the  place  of  Peter,  the  eminent  grandeur  of  the 
sacerdotal  Chair ; the  mother-Church,  holding  in  her  hand 
the  guidance  of  all  others  ; the  source  of  the  episcopacy, 
from  which  proceeds  the  ray  of  government ; the  principal 
Chair,  the  unique  Chair,  in  which  alone  all  preserve  their 
unity.’  You  hear,  in  these  words  St.  Optatus,  St.  Augustine, 
St.  Cyprian,  St.  Irenaeus,  St.  Prosper,  St.  A vitus,  Theodoret* 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  others,  Africa,  Gaul,  Greece* 
Asia,  the  East  and  the  West  united  together.”  (1) 

(1)  Bosscet;  Sermon  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church 


Digitized  by 


Google 


CHAPTER  n. 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


The  Church  had  much  to  suffer,  as  we  have  seen,  from 
the  Pagau  governments  of  the  earth,  and  from  the  ignorant 
hatred  of  the  Pagan  peoples,  during  the  first  three  centuries 
of  her  existence.  This  suffering  was  terminated,  so  far  as 
the  Roman  Empire  was  concerned,  by  the  conversion  of  Con- 
stantine. There  was  also  another  source  of  trouble  which 
did  not  terminate  with  the  active  influence  of  Roman  Pagan- 
ism, and  which,  since  God  has  irrevocably  given  toman  a free 
will,  will  not  terminate  until  the  end  of  time.  The  Pagan  per- 
secutors of  the  early  time  killed  the  bodies  of  our  ancestors  in 
the  faith,  but  the  persecutors,  of  whom  we  are  now  about  to 
speak,  were  killers,  says  Tertullian,  of  the  truth  itself.  Her- 
esy is  one  of  those  scandals  which  must  of  necessity  cross 
the  path  of  the  children  of  light.  So  true  is  this,  that  the 
very  first  generation  of  Christians  found  themselves  face 
to  face  with  this  far  greater  agony  than  any  caused  them 
by  the  Pagan  torturer  of  the  body. 

Simon,  called  Magus,  from  his  profession  of  the  art  of 
magic,  is  the  first  heretic  of  whom  history  makes  mention. 
He  was  a Goth  by  blood,  but  was  probably  born  at  Samaria. 
The  people  of  this  town  had  already  begun  to  venerate  him, 
when  he  professed  the  Christian  faith,  and  received  baptism 
at  the  hands  of  Philip  the  Deacon.  Having  tried  to  pur- 
chase the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  we  are  told  in  Ads,  8t 
he  became  the  cause  of  the  Church’s  introduction  of  a new 
term  into  her  vocabulary — the  word  “ Simony,”  which,  un- 
fortunately, is  often  met  within  her  history.  The  doctrines 
of  Simon  so  team  with  absurdities,  that  we  would  be  tempt- 
ed to  deny  that  any  person  could  have  accepted  them,  were 

26 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


\ 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTUREE8.  27 

it  not  for  the  authority  of  Iren  aeus,  (1) ; Epiphanius,  (2);  Cy- 
ril of  Jerusalem.  (3) ; and  Tliedoret,  (4).  Thus,  he  was  al- 
ways accompanied  by  a Tyrian  woman  named  Helen,  who 
had  been  a common  prostitute,  and  his  followers  must  have 
been  especially  interested  in  her  when  they  were  informed 
that  she  was  the  same  Helen  who  had  caused  the  siege  of 
Troy  They  seem,  however,  to  have  been  prepared  to  swal- 
low any  thing  offered  by  Simon,  for  they  believed  him  when  he 
declared  that  it  was  he  who  had  some  years  before  appear- 
ed to  the  Jews  in  the  guise  of  the  Son  of  God  ; that  he  had 
descended  at  Samaria  as  the  Father  ; and  that  the  other  peo- 
ples knew  him  as  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  also  declared  that  his 
Helen  was  the  first  conception  of  his  divine  mind,  and  the 
mother  of  all  men  ; that  the  love  of  the  fallen  angels  for  her 
' kept  her  upon  earth,  and  that  to  seek  her-  the  wandering 
sheep — he  had  come  upon  earth.  He  erected  his  own  image 
to  be  ad(  red  under  the  name  of  Jupiter;  that  of  Helen  under 
the  name  of  Minerva.  According  to  Simon,  the  Mosaic  Law 
came  not  from  God,  but  from  some  evil  Intelligence,  and  all 
who  adhered  to  it  would  eternally  perish.  These  who  trust- 
ed in  him  and  his  Helen  might  do  what  they  pleased  and 
yet  be  saved.  Men  were  to  be  saved,  not  by  good  works,  but 
by  his  grace.  He  not  onlv  allowed  all  sorts  of  obscenity,  but 
taught  certain  mysteries  of  impurity,  which  he  designated 
as  the  mysteries  of  perfect  knowledge,  without  which  no 
man  could  be  saved. 

With  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  world  and  of  man,  he  taught 
that  it  was  through  his  Helen  that  he  first  conceived  the 
idea  of  creating  the  angels,  and  that  they  afterwards  created 
the  world  and  mankind.  The  idea  of  the  necessity  of  good 
works  was  suggested  to  man  by  the  angels,  that  they  might 
keep  him  in  slavery  to  themselves.  Although  Simon  pre- 
tended to  despise  the  angels  yet  ho  taught  his  disciples  to 
mollify  them  by  certain  mysterh  us  rites,  lest  they  should 
seize  and  detain  the  soul  when  it  left  the  body. 

Simon  must  have  been  a master  in  the  magic  art,  or  he 
would  not  have  succeeded  so  well  in  deceiving  men.  Nero 

(1)  Aaalnst  Heresies  ft,  5,  c.  80.  (2)  Heresies , 21 . (3)  CathecMsm  No.  ft. 

(4)  Fables  of  the  Heretics , c.  1. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


28 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  some  of  the  first  people  of  Rome  succumbed  to  his  il- 
lusions, and  he  was  only  convicted  of  imposture,  when, 
having  attempted  to  show  his  divinity  by  flying  in  the  air, 
the  prayers  of  St.  Peter  caused  him  to  perish  miserably  (1). 
Simon  Magus  was  recognized  by  St.  Irenaeus  as  the  head 
and  front  of  Gnosticism.  But  the  term  Gnostic  is  applied 
by  the  olden  authors  to  many  different  sects.  As  all  heresi- 
archs  necessarily  vaunt  themselves  as  possessing  more  or 
less  of  knowledge  superior  to  that  of  their  fellow  Chris- 
tians, and  this  arrogance  is  shared  by  their  followers,  so 
the  term  Gnostic,  knowing  one,”  came  to  be  given  to,  and 
readily  accepted  by,  most  of  the  early  heresies.  The.  word 
fastened  itself,  however,  in  a peculiar  manner,  to  the  disci- 
ples of  Carpocrates,  of  whom  we  shall  speak  in  their  proper 
place.  Properly  speaking,  Simon  Magus,  as  well  as  his 
disciple  Menander,  should  be  placed  among  the  false  Messb 
alls  of  the  world,  rather  than  among  the  heretics,  for  they 
both  declared  that  they  were  sent  by  the  invisible  powers  to 
operate  the  salvation  of  mankind ; they  both  claimed  to  be 
the  Holy  One  hitherto  unknown  to  men. 

Menander  was  a Samaritan,  and  a disciple  of  Simon. 
He  commenced  to  propagate  his  errors  in  the  year  74.  He 
taught  that  he  was  the  saviour  of  men,  come  down  from 
heaven.  No  man  could  be  saved  from  the  tyranny  of  the 
angelic  creators  of  the  world  unless  he  was  initiated  in  the 
mysteries  of  magic  and  had  received  his  baptism.  This  bap- 
tism would  secure  the  recipient  not  only  from  death,  but 
from  the  miseries  of  old  age. 

Saturnine  was  an  Antiochian,  and  though  his  heresy  did 
not  flourish  until  about  the  year  120,  yet  it  should  be  treat- 
ed of  in  this  place,  as  the  author  was  a disciple  of  Menander. 
Accepting  Simon’s  doctrine  as  to  the  angelic  creators  of 
man,  he  taught  that  when  the  angels  had  succeeded  in 
producing  the  body  of  the  first  man,  they  were  unable  to 
give  it  life,  but  that  God  sent  the  vital  spark  from  heaven, 
which  spark,  after  death,  returns  to  its  source.  The  God 
of  the  Jews  was  one  of  the  angels,  and  the  Saviour  was  sent 

(1)  Arnobiuh,  Ayainxt  the.  Gentile#,  h.  2;  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  cat,  6;  Eusebius, 
Hwf.,  b.  2,  c.  12;  St  Epiphwius.  Heresies  21 ; St.  Augustine,  Heresies;  Theodorix, 
Fable s;  St.  Maximus  of  Turin,  sc rm.  5. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


29 


on  earth  to  keep  this  deity  in  order,  and  to  save  those  who 
would  believe  in  himself.  Christ  was  incorporeal,  and  ap- 
peared to  men  only  as  a phantasm ; all  His  actions,  His 
suffering,  death,  <fcc.,  were  purely  pliantastic,  in  no  sense  real. 
Nuptials  and  carnal  generation  were  of  Satanic  origin. 
When  the  angels  created  men  they  established  two  orders, 
one  of  the  good,  and  the  other  of  the  bad. 

BA8ILIDES,  a companion  of  Saturnine  in  the  school  of 
Menander,  was  an  Alexandrian  by  birth.  He  wrote  a gos- 
pel, and  about  forty  books  of  commentaries  on  the  Scrip- 
tures. He  held  that  there  was  one  Principle,  the  creator 
of  Mind,  in  its  turn  the  producer  of  the  Word.  From  the 
Word,  Prudence  had  origin ; from  Prudence  came  Virtue 
and  Wisdom.  These  two  created  the  Powers  and  the 
Angels,  who  in  turn,  created  the  highest  heaven  and  other 
angels ; these  last  produced  another  heaven,  and  still  more 
angels,  and  so  on  continued  the  productive  process  until 
there  were  365  heavens,  each  with  its  own  order  of  spirits. 
The  lowest  order  created  the  earth,  and  their  prince  created 
man.  It  was  this  angelic  chief  whom  the  Jews  knew  and 
worshipped,  and  who  sent  his  Mind  in  the  form  of  Christ 
to  free  man  from  the  dominion  of  his  angelic  tyrants. 
When  Christ  was  being  led  to  death,  He  changed  bodies 
with  the  Cyrenian  ; then  Simon  was  crucified,  and  the  Sav- 
iour stood  by  unknown. 

The  human  body  does  not  rise  from  the  grave.  Our  souls 
have  sinned  in  another  life,  and  are  punished  here.  Volun- 
tary sins  are  not  forgiven,  but  the  only  punishment  of  sin 
is  in  the  nature  of  the  transmigration  to  which  all  souls  are 
subject.  In  time  of  persecution  it  is  proper  to  deny  God 
before  the  enemy,  because  only  the  just  are  men,  the  others 
being  as  hogs  and  dogs  ; we  are  obliged  to  confess  God  only 
before  men.  Like  his  predecessors,  Basilides  taught  his 
followers  the  most  revolting  obscenities.  Against  his  doc- 
trines wrote  St  Ignatius,  Martyr ; Castor  Agrippa,  and  Sts. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Epiphanius. 

Cerinthus  is  said  to  have  moved  the  question  as  to  the 
observances  of  the  Jewish  law,  which  caused  the  Council  of 


\ 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


30 


STUDIES  IN  CHUliCH  HISTORY. 


Jerusalem  (1).  His  fundamental  errois  were  the  following  — 
There  is  but  one  God,  but  He  did  not  directly  create  the 
world  ; He  produced  certain  distinct  Powers,  who  alto- 
gether ignore  Him.  The  Mosaic  law  is  binding  upon  man, 
equally  with  the  Gospel/"  When  the  man  Jesus  became  an 
adult,  the  Christ  descended  upon  Him,  and  after  the  cruci- 
fixion returned  to  Heaven.  Cerinthus  mutilated  the  gospel 
of  St.  Matthew,  and  rejected  much  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles, 
and  all  of  the  Acts.  He  seems  to  have  had  a special  affec- 
tion for  Judas.  His  followers  used  to  receive  baptism  in 
the  name  of  those  who  had  died  without  it.  After  the  final 
resurrection  the  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ  is  to  come,  and 
for  a thousand  years  men  are  to  live  in  Jerusalem  in  the 
enjoyment  of  carnal  pleasure. 

Ebion  taught  that  God  gave  to  Satan  power  over  the 
present  world,  and  to  Christ  the  future.  Christ  was  a mere 
man.  born  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  Some  of  his  followers,  we 
learn  from  Tertullian  (2),  held  that  Mary  conceived  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  but  denied  that  Christ  was  the  Eternal  Word. 
Ebion  inculcated  an  equal  respect  for  the  Mosaic  and  Chris- 
tian laws.  He  admitted  as  a gospel,  only  that  of  St  Mat- 
thew; lie  expunged  from  the  Pentateuch  all  that  permitted 
the  eating  of  once  animated  things.  Jesus  was  no  more 
than  a successor  of  Moses,  but  He  was  the  prophet  of  truth, 
while  the  other  prophets  were  only  of  intelligence.  Ebion 
excogitated  a book  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  which  he  rep- 
resented St.  Paul  as  having  been  of  Pagan  parents,  as  having 
become  a Jew  for  love  of  the  pontiffs  daughter,  and  as  re-, 
volting  from  Judaism  because  he  could  not  receive  her  in 
marriage. 

Nicholas  was  one  of  the  seven  deacons  of  whom  we  read 
in  Acts,  c.  7,  v.  5,  but  we  do  not  know  for  certain  how  his 
name  came  to  be  given  to  a heresy.  Some  of  the  ancient 
writers  hold  that  he  had  married  a very  beautiful  woman, 
but  had  not  the  strength  to  leave  her.  St.  Clement  oj 
Alexandria  (3)  says  that,  being  accused  of  an  excessive 
attachment  for  this  woman,  he  offered  to  cede  her  to  who- 
ever would  marry  her.  St.  Clement  adds  that  Nicholas 

(UEpiph ANIL'S,  Heresies , 38.  (2)  The  Flesh  of  (hrwt,  c.  18.  (3)  Stromaton,  b.  3,  c.  4 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


31 


was  very  chaste,  but  that  wicked  men  had  misinterpreted 
bis  maxim  that  “ we  shall  exercise  the  flesh,”  by  which  he 
meant  to  signify  that  we  should  rule  it.  Many  authors 
hold  that  a Gnostic  sect  took  their  name  from  Nicholas 
without  warrant,  simply  to  feign  a respectable  parentage. 
Their  principal  errors  were  those  of  the  Cerinthians.  They 
especially  venerated  a fictitious  female  called  Prunicus,  a 
personification  of  voluptuousness.  This  heresy  is  mention- 
ed by  name  in  the  Apocalypse , c .2. 

Sampseans,  or  Schamseans,  is  the  name  given  to  a sect 
which  arose  in  the  second  century,  and  is  supposed  to  be 
identical  with  the  Helcesites,  founded  by  a false  prophet 
called  Elxai.  According  to  St.  Epiphanius,  their  doctrines 
were  a mixture  of  Paganism,  Judaism,  and  Christianity. 
Their  name  is  derived  from  the  Hebrew  schemesch , the  sun, 
they  being  supposed  to  have  worshipped  that  planet ; that 
they  did  so,  is  doubted  by  some  (1).  They  held  that  Christ 
was  a creature  ; that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  of  the  feminine 
sex,  and  sister  to  Christ.  They  despised  virginity,  and  com- 
manded marriage.  They  rejected  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
In  the  time  of  St.  Epiphanius,  this  sect  greatly  vaunted  the 
sanctity  of  two  of  their  women,  named  Martha  and  Marth- 
anna  ; they  collected  the  dust  from  their  sandals,  and  their 
spittle,  that  they  might  form  amulets  from  them  (2). 

Carpocrates,  an  Alexandrian  by  birth,  held  that  corporeal 
creatures  were  the  work  of  the  angels.  Jesus  was  born  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  many  of  these  sectaries  were  equal 
to  Him  in  virtue  and  wisdom.  Nothing  is  evil  in  itself ; 
the  distinction  of  good  and  evil  subsists  only  in  the  minds 
of  men.  Every  species  of  voluptuousness  is  permissible. 
Souls  transmigrate  from  body  to  body,  according  to  Matth. 
5,  v . 25  and  26.  These  heretics  placed  the  picture  of  Christ 
along  with  those  of  Pythagoras,  Plato,  &c.,  and  venerated  all 
alike  with  Pagan  rites.  In  the  time  of  Pope  Anicetus,  a 
female  Carpocratian  named  Marcellina  made  a great  many 
perverts  in  Rome  itself. 

The  Gnostics,  of  the  origin  of  whose  name  we  have  already 
spoken,  held  all  the  errors,  with  some  changes,  whicn  we 

<l)  Bjcausobre,  History  of  the  Manicheans , v.  2,  b.  0.  (2)  Epiphanius,  Heresies,  60. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


32 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


have  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraphs.  Each  of  the 
365  heavens  of  Basilides  had  its  presiding  deity,  so  that, 
with  Virtue  and  Prudence,  the  offspring  of  the  Word, 
son  of  Mind,  and  finally,  Mind  itself,  there  were,  subject 
to  the  One  Great  Principle,  369  minor  gods.  Christ  was  not 
born  of  Mary,  unless  in  appearance.  As  to  the  turpitudes  of 
the  Gnostics,  we  decline  to  go  into  particulars,  for,  as  Tertul- 
lian  says,  they  were  monstrosities  rather  ilian  crimes.  It  is 
better,  if  we  may  use  the  w ords  ol  St.  Epiphanius,  to  con- 
sign the  putrid  corpse  to  the  grave.  This  saint  had  learned 
the  mysteries  of  the  Gnostics  from  certain  of  their  women, 
who,  while  he  was  a mere  boy,  had  laid  snares  to  his  virtue, 
and  were  necessity  to  arise  for  the  divulgation  of  their  ne- 
farious practices,  the  student  would  find  them  accurately, 
though  hesitatingly,  narrated  in  his  book  On  Heresy , num . 26. 
One  of  the  greatest  evils  accruing  to  the  Church  from 
Gnosticism  was  the  evil  repute  into  wdiich  its  immoralities 
brought  the  Christian  name  among  the  Pagans.  St.  Justin 
Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  other  apologists,  spent  a great  part 
of  their  time  in  clearing  Christianity  from  the  imputation 
of  responsibility  for  Gnostic  wickedness. 

Cerdo  was  a Syrian  w'lio  came  to  Rome  during  the  Ponti- 
ficate of  Hyginus.  According  to  St.  Irenaeus,  he  again  and 
again  apostatized,  and  again  and  again  did  public  penance 
and  wras  absolved.  His  principal  error  was  that  the  God 
of  the  Prophets  was  not  the  Father  of  our  Lord.  The  God 
of  the  Jew’s  was  just  and  severe,  while  the  Father  of  Jesus 
was  good  and  benign.  Christ  was  not  born  of  Mary,  and 
' was  man  only  in  appearance.  Of  the  Newr  Testament,  he  re- 
jected some  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  Acts,  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  all  the  Gospels  excepting  a portion  of  St.  Luke’s. 
Cerdo  was  condemned  by  St.  Apollonius  of  Corinth  in  a 
Synod  of  oriental  bishops. 

Marcion  came  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  Black  Sea. 
After  a terrible  picture  of  that  region,  worse  in  his  day  than 
in  our  own,  Tertullian  (1)  says,  “ But  the  most  barbarous 
and  sorrowful  thing  about  Pontus  is  that  there  wras  born 
Marcion,  more  loathsome  than  a Scythian,  more  unstable 

(1)  A pa  ins*  Marcion , b.  1,  c.  1. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


33 


than  a Hamaxobian,  more  cruel  than  a Massagetan,  more 
brazen  than  an  Amazon, . . . .more  deceitful  than  the  Danube, 
more  refractory  than  Caucasus.  Why  not,  when  the  true  Pro- 
metheus, God  Almighty,  is  wounded  by  his  blasphemies  ? 
For  Marcion  is  more  unsparing  than  were  the  beasts  of  that 
barbarity.  What  beaver  is  such  a castrator  of  the  flesh  as 
lie  who  abolishes  nuptials  ? What  ermine  is  such  adevourer 
as  lie  who  eats  into  the  gospels  ? Thou,  O Euxine,  hast  pro- 
duced a beast  no  more  acceptable  to  philosophers  than  to 
Christians.  That  little  dog  Diogenes,  carrying  a lantern 
iu  mid-day,  tried  to  find  a man ; Marcion,  having  put  out 
the  light  of  faith,  lost  the  God  he  had  found.”  This  heresi- 
arch  was  the  son  of  a pious  bishop,  and  his  father  was 
compelled  to  excommunicate  him  for  the  crime  of  rape. 
Going  to  Rome  after  the  death  of  Pope  Hyginus,  he  in  vain 
applied  to  the  Roman  clergy  for  restoration  to  communion, 
and  then  joined  the  disciples  of  Cerdo.  He  first  attracted 
notice  about  the  year  144,  in  the  Pontificate  of  Pius  I.  He 
tried  to  solve  the  question  of  the  origin  of  evil  by  admitting 
good  and  evil  Principle.  According  to  him,  Christ  did 
not  assume  true  flesh.  Marcion  denied  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  and  taught  metempsychosis.  Cain,  Dathan, 
Esau,  the  Sodomites,  and  all  the  nations  who  did  not  know 
the  God  of  the  Jews,  were  saved  by  Jesus  ; Abel,  Enoch, 
and  the  Patriarchs,  were  not  then  saved,  because  they 
acknowledged  said  God,  when  they  ought  rather  to  have 
turned  to  the  other  God,  who  cannot  be  seen  with  eyes,  but 
they  will  yet  be  saved  by  another  Christ.  Marcion  rejected 
the  Old  Testament,  because  produced  by  the  evil  God  ; as 
for  the  New,  he  admitted  only  the  gospel  of  St.  Luke,  and 
portions  of  some  of  St.  Paul’s  writings.  He  taught  that 
man  could  attain  salvation,  only  by  abstaining  from  all 
pleasure  not  purely  spiritual.  Hence,  he  condemned 
marriage,  and  made  of  continence  a rigid  obligation,  though 
he  had  himself  grossly  failed  in  its  regard  (1).  Baptism  could 
be  given  only  to  the  continent,  but,  to  more  and  more  purify 

(t)  The  reason  of  Marcion’s  strictness  in  matter  of  continence  is  found  in  his  theory  that 
tote  human  race  owes  its  origin  to  the  evil  principle.  It  became  a duty  therefore  to  abstain 
from  the  propagation  of  the  human  family.  This  contempt  for  the  carnal  port  of  man  caused 
the  Marcion! tes  to  rush  blindly  into  martyrdom,  but  history  mentions  only  three  who  suffer- 
ed with  the  Catholics. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


u 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


one’s  self,  it  could  be  received  three  times.  According  to 
Tertullian,  in  his  Prescriptions , c.  30,  Marcion  finally  repent- 
ed of  his  apostacy,  and  implored  to  be  allowed  to  enter  upon 
a course  of  public  penance  ; his  request  was  granted,  on 
condition  that  he  would  restore  to  the  Church  those  whom 
he  had  allured  from  her,  but  he  was  soon  overtaken  by  death. 

Valentinl:,  chief  oi  the  heresy  kuown  by  his  name,  was 
born  in  Egypt,  shortly  alter  the  deatli  oi  the  last  of  the 
Apostles.  Being  ambitious  of  the  episcopacy,  and  having  been 
disappointed,  he  turned  his  attention  to  heresy  as  another 
avenue  of  fame.  Rome  was  a wider  theatre  than  Alexandria, 
but  he  tried  in  vain  to  obtain  followers  there ; expelled  from 
that  church,  he  settled  in  Cyprus,  where  he  had  better  suc- 
cess, and  soon  his  disciples  began  to  spread  his  ideas  in  a 
part  of  Europe,  and  in  Asia  and  Africa.  He  admitted  a 
Divinity  sojourning  from  eternity  in  a pleroma , plenitude, 
of  light ; there  were  also  there  thirty  .Eons,  immortal  intel- 
ligences, male  and  female,  born  of  the  union  of  Bythos, 
(depth),  the  first  father,  with  Ennoea  or  Sige  (silence),  and 
from  their  offspring.  The  first  progeny  of  Bythos  and  En- 
ncea  were  Intellect  and  Truth  ; these  also  produced  two 
Eons,  &c.  The  last  of  the  thirty  were  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  (1).  According  to  Valentine,  there  are  three  species 
of  men;  the  earthly,  animal,  and  spiritual.  Cain  was  the 
source  from  which  springs  the  earthly  man,  and  that  race 
is  dissolved  in  corruption.  Abel  was  the  father  of  the  ani- 
mal men,  and  if  they  conduct  themselves  well,  they  will 
rest  in  a middle  region;  if  not,  they  will  pass  into  a similar 
animal  state. . Seth  gave  origin  to  the  spiritual  man,  and 
he  will  be  married  to  an  angel  of  the  Saviour.  Catholics, 
said  Valentine,  are  animal  persons,  and  for  their  attainment 
of  salvation,  good  works  are  necessary  ; the  Valentinians, 
on  the  contrary,  are  spiritual,  and  for  their  salvation 
knowledge  is  sufficient.  Hence,  those  among  these  secta- 

0)  Heretics  always  And  apologists,  no  matter  how  absurd  may  be  their  teachings.  If  the 
absurdities  are  too  patent  for  excuse,  then  it  is  claimed  that  the  doctrine  must  not  be  tak- 
en too  literally.  So  it  has  been  with  these  theories  of  Valentine,  which,  by  the  way,  were 
taught  by  many  before  him,  though  in  a different  form.  It  has  been  contended  thai  Valen- 
tine only  used  a mystic  method  of  explaining  the  operations  of  God ; that  his  notions  are,  in 
the  main,  those  of  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  who  probably  derived  them  from  the  Chal- 
deans. For  an  excellent,  though  brief,  treatise  on  this  subject,  see  Bergier’s  Diction - 
4i rj  of  ThioljOjUi  art-  ViiltntinUv'.x. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


35 


ries  who  thought  themselves  perfect,  ignored  even  the  di- 
vine law,  perpetrating  any  foul  deeds  to  which  they  were 
tempted.  Valentine  explained  the  mortal  birth  of  the  Sav- 
iour by  saying  that  Christ  took  His  body  from  Heaven,  not 
from  the  womb  of  Mary ; that  He  passed  through  Mary, 
Valentine  admitted;  as  Tertullian  expresses  the  idea,  “He 
i>su?d  through  the  Virgin,  not  from  the  Virgin.” 

Tatian  was  a celebrated  Syrian  philosopher,  and  after 
embracing  Christianity  he  became  a disciple  of  St.  Justin. 
After  the  martyrdom  of  his  master  he  returned  to  his  own 
land,  and  fell  into  error.  Like  Marcion,  he  taught  the  two 
Principles,  good  and  evil.  The  latter,  he  said,  was  the  author 
of  the  Old,  the  former  of  the  New  Testament.  He  condemn- 
ed the  use  of  marriage,  meat,  and  wine,  as  all  equally  the 
work  of  the  evil  Principle.  According  to  him,  Christ  had 
only  the  appearance  of  a human  body.  Tatian  composed  a 
gospel  called  Diatesmron , that  is,  a union  of  the  original 
four ; in  it  he  excluded  all  the  texts  which  showed  that  the 
human  genealogy  of  Christ  was  from  David.  The  followers 
of  Tatian  were  called  Encratites,  or  Continents.  One  of 
these,  a certain  Severus,  not  to  be  confounded  with  the 
Euty chian  patriarch,  Severus,  of  the  sixth  century,  held  that, 
after  the  creation  of  man  by  God,  Satan  felt  the  need  of 
some  help  on  earth,  and  hence  created  woman. 

Montanus  was  a Phrygian  eunuch,  and  commenced  to  teach 
his  heresy  during  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  (138-161). 
He  was  greatly  aided  by  two  abandoned  women  named  Pris- 
cilla and  Maximilla,  who  went  about  in  the  most  free  and 
easy  manner,  giving  utterance  to  prophecies  which  time 
proved  empty.  Montanus  and  his  women  were  especially 
noted  for  greed  of  money,  which,  says  Apollonius,  v/ho  wrote 
against  them,  of  itself  proved  the  falsity  of  their  prophetic 
claims,  since  the  Scriptures  forbid  the  prophets  to  receive 
money.  The  errors  of  Montanus  may  be  summed  upas  fol- 
lows. In  His  revelations  to  man,  God  has  proportioned  his 
lessons  to  the  capacity  of  man  at  the  time.  Thus,  those 
given  to  the  Jews  were  fuller  than  those  given  to  the  patri- 
archs, while  those  given  by  Christ  were  still  more  extensive 
and  satisfactory.  Montana  * as  the  Paraclete  promised  by 


Digitized  by 


Google 


36 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Je&us  as  the  teacher  of  all  things.  A hundred  years  after 
Montanus,  Manes,  and  in  the  seventh  century,  Mohammed, 
preached  a similar  doctrine ; all  three  forgetting  that  the 
Paraclete  had  been  promised  to  the  Apontles , and  that  it  was 
therefore  absurd  to  expect  another,  for  whom  there  was  no 
necessity.  The  first  Montanists  made  no  alterations  in  the 
Creed,  but  they  claimed  a system  of  morality  more  perfect 
than  that  of  the  Apostles.  That  it  was  certainly  more  aus- 
tere, is  seen  from  the  fact  that  they  denied  to  the  priest- 
hood the  power  of  absolving  from  the  greater  crimes ; that 
they  kept  three  Lents,  during  which  they  ate  nothing  con- 
taining juice ; that  they  regarded  second  nuptials  as  adul- 
teries ; that  they  said  that  we  cannot  fly  from  persecution, 
or  purchase  the  leniency  of  the  tyrant.  Anything  approach- 
ing taste  and  care  in  the  toilet  of  females  they  regarded  as 
diabolic  ; the  arts  and  sciences,  the  study  of  philosophy  and 
literature,  wrere  unworthy  of  Christians  (1).  Condemned  by 
the  synod  of  Hierapolis,  they  made  their  headquarters  at 
Pepuzium  in  Phrygia,  whence  their  other  names  of  Pepu- 
zians,  Phrygians,  and  Cataphrygians.  They  established  a 
hierarchy,  into  which  they  admitted  women,  saying  that  in 
Christ  there  is  neither  masculine  nor  feminine.  Gal . 3.  Their 
doctrines  soon  spread  over  Phrygia,  Galatia,  and  Lydia, 
made  some  impression  at  Constantinople,  but  failed  in  Rome. 
Penetrating  into  Africa,  they  seduced,  by  their  severe  mo- 
rality, the  harsh  and  austere  Tertullian.  While  in  this  here- 
sy, Tertullian  composed  most  of  his  moral  treatises,  and 
his  books  on  Fasting,  Chastity,  Monogamy,  and  Flight  from 
Persecution.  Whether  Tertullian  finally  returned  to  the 
bosom  of  the  Church,  is  doubtful.  The  remaining  heresies 
of  the  second  century  are  of  slight  importance ; therefore,  we 
shall  pass  to  the  principal  ones  of  the  third  century.  Some 
of  these  are  of  such  importance,  that  we  shall  treat  of  each 
in  a special  chapter  ; they  are  Novatianism,  the  error  of 
the  Re-baptizers,  and  the  heresy  of  Paul  of  Samosata. 

(1)  Sts.  Augustine,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  Eplphanlus,  attribute  certain  terrible  rites  to 
the  Montanists,  especially  to  the  Pepuzian  faction.  Thus  they  are  said  to  have  had  a rite  In 
which  an  infant  was  punctured  by  needles  In  the  entire  body,  and  the  blood,  being  mixed 
with  flour,  was  used  for  the  Eucharist.  If  the  child  died,  he  was  a martyr;  If  he  recovered, 
he  would  be  a holy  priest.  Tertullian  denies  this;  St.  Jerome  says  he  would  rather  not 
believe  It. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


37 


Sabellius  was  born  at  Ptolemais,  in  Libya.  He  com- 
menced to  spread  his  errors  about  the  year  260.  According 
to  him,  the  Father  is  the  only  Person  in  Gk>d,  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  being  attributes,  emanations,  or  operations, 
not  subsisting  Persons.  The  Father  may  be  likened  unto  the 
aun ; the  Son  unto  its  light,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  unto  its 
heat.  The  Word  emanated  from  the  Father  like  a divine 
ray,  and,  united  with  Jesus,  operated  the  redemption  of  man ; 
then,  the  Word  ascended  to  the  Father,  as  the  ray  to  its 
source.  The  divine  warmth  of  the  Father  was  communi- 
cated to  the  Apostles  under  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Christ,  therefore,  was  not  God,  nor  the  Son  of  God,  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  terms  ; if  Sabellius  admitted  an  Incarna- 
tion, it  was  of  the  Father,  and  hence  the  fathers  who  wrote 
against  him  placed  him  in  the  ranks  of  the  Patripassians, 
founded  by  Praxeas,  in  the  second  century.  This  heresy 
made  some  progress  in  Asia  Minor,  and  even  at  Rome.  In 
the  fourth  century  it  was  revived  by  Photin,  and  in  more 
modern  times  by  the  Socinians. 

Manes,  whose  name  has  been  perpetuated  in  the  Man- 
ichaean  system,  was  not  its  founder ; for,  according  to  Plu- 
tarch, its  doctrines  were  held  among  many  nations  of  anti- 
quity. Manes,  born  in  Persia  in  the  year  240,  was  bought 
as  a slave,  when  quite  young,  by  an  aged  widow,  who,  a 
ahort  time  before,  had  become  the  heir  of  a rich  magician 
named  Terbinthus,  who  had  met  the  fate  of  Simon  Magus. 
Terbinthus  himself  had  been  the  disciple  and  heir  of  a 
certain  Eastern  prestidigitator  and  sorcerer,  called  Scythian, 
who  also  fell  from  the  roof  of  a temple  in  Jerusalem  while 
engaged  in  incantations.  The  wealthy  widow  gave  a fine 
education  to  her  favorite  slave,  and  having  manumitted  him, 
adopted  him  as  her  heir.  Among  the  treasures  originally 
accumulated  by  the  unlucky  magician  were  four  of  his  books, 
which,  on  the  death  of  the  old  lady,  fell,  with  the  rest,  into 
4he  hands  of  Manes.  The  contents  of  these  books,  mixed 
with  adulterated  Christian  doctrine,  formed  the  system 
which  Manes  now  presented  to  the  world.  He  was  obliged 
i,o  flee  from  Persia  soon  after  receiving  his  inheritance, 
having  escaped  from  the  prison  into  which  he  had  been 


Digitized  by 


Google 


38 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


thrown  on  account  of  the  death  of  the  prince  royal  under 
his  spells.  Arriving  at  Mesopotamia,  he  announced  himself 
as  the  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  (1),  and  commenced  to  preach 
his  doctrines.  In  the  year  277,  he  held  a dispute  with 
Archelaus,  Bishop  of  Cascar,  who  proved,  to  the  satisfaction 
of  all,  that  Manes  was  an  impostor.  The  Acts  of  this  con- 
ference are  yet  extant  (2),  and  are  the  source  of  what- 
ever information  Socrates  gives  as  to  this  heresiarch. 
Manes  now  returned  to  Persia,  but  falling  into  the 
hands  of  tlie  king,  he  expiated  the  death  of  the  prince  roy- 
al by  being  flayed  alive.  His  disciples  carried  his  doctrines 
throughout  the  East,  and  finally  they  entered  Europe.  At 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century  they  were  well  known  in 
Africa  and  in  Spain.  Down  to  the  time  of  the  Emperor 
Anastasius  they  were  under  the  ban  of  the  empire,  but,  in 
the  year  491,  under  the  influence  of  his  Maniehaean  mother, 
that  sovereign  gave  them  some  rest.  Justin  and  his  succes- 
sors returned  to  the  old  rigor.  Manicheism,  though  divided 
into  numerous  sects,  was  quite  powerful  in  the  East  until  the 
end  of  the  ninth  century,  when,  having  joined  the  Saracen 
invaders,  its  professors  were  defeated  in  several  campaigns, 
and  finally  dispersed.  Some  penetrated  into  Bulgaria,  others 
into  Lombardy,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury we  find  them  strong  in  France,  especially  in  Provence 
and  Languedoc.  In  the  diocese  of  Albi  they  were  partic- 
ularly numerous,  whence  their  name  of  Albigenses.  During 
the  last  years  of  their  existence,  the  Manicheans  had  aban- 
doned the  fundamental  hypothesis  of  two  Principles  ; they 
spoke  of  the  evil  Principle  as  we  do  of  Satan.  But  they 
clung  to  their  errors  as  to  the  Incarnation  and  the  Sacra- 
ments, to  their  hatred  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy,  and  to 
that  refined  libertinage  which  often  accompanies  false  spir- 
ituality. 

With  regard  to  the  errors  of  Manicheism,  it  must  be  ob- 
served that  its  leaders  did  not  follow  Manes  in  everything  ; 
each  one  arranged  his  doctrines  so  as  to  best  suit  the 


(1)  Some  authors  have  held  that  Manes  was  a Christian  priest : St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  as- 
serts that  he  never  embraced  the  faith. 

(2)  Collection  of  Ancient  Monument*  of  the  Greek  and  iMtin  Churches,  Rome , 1898. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


HERESIES  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES. 


39 


time  apd  circumstances.  Theodorat  counted  seventy  sects 
of  Manicheans,  who  were  united  in  the  avowal  of  belief  in 
two  Principles,  but  who  differed  as  to  their  nature  and  op- 
erations, as  well  as  to  the  speculative  and  moral  consequences 
to  be  drawn  therefrom.  But  the  following  points  were  of 
general  acceptance  among  them.  Starting  with  the  idea  of 
a good  and  an  evil  Principle,  they  declared  that  flesh  being 
material,  and  matter  being  the  work  of  the  evil  Principle,  the 
flesh  of  Christ  was  not  real,  but  simulated  (1).  They  condemn- 
ed generation,  and  impeded  it;  the  priests  instructing  the 
married,  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  time,  how  to  effect  the 
nefarious  design  (2).  Our  bodies,  the}  said,  will  not  arise 
from  the  grave,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  come  from 
the  evil  one  (3).  They  rejected  the  Old  Testament,  assert- 
ing that  the  God  of  Moses  was  one  of  the  princes  of  dark- 
ness ; as  for  the  New,  some  admitted  this  portion,  some 
not  (4).  Each  man  has  two  souls,  one  of  which  is  a part  of 
God,  and  the  other  from  the  evil  one  ; every  good  deed 
is  to  be  attributed  to  the  good  soul,  every  evil  one  to  the  bad 
(5).  In  man  there  is  no  free  will ; if  there  were,  God  would 
be  to  blame  for  sin  (6).  Baptism  is  not  necessary  for  sal- 
vation, and  hence  they  baptized  none  of  their  number  (7). 
Souls  transmigrate  ; the  souls  of  Manicheans  are  assumed 
by  the  more  perfect  of  the  sect  in  their  food,  and  being  thus 
purified,  return  to  the  good  Principle  (8).  Some  of  the 
eustoms,  of  the  Manicheans  were  strange,  and  some  detest- 
able. Some  again  were  simply  horrible,  and  like  those  of 
the  Gnostics,  are  better  left  unnoticed  (9). 

Before  closing  this  chapter  upon  the  heretics  of  the  first 
thre'*  centuries,  we  would  say  something  upon  the  doctrines 
of  Origen,  if  it  were  certain  that  this  great  writer  was  guilty 
of  heresy.  This  great  man,  says  Tillemont,  “was  banished 
from  his  country,  deposed  from  the  priesthood,  excommu- 
uicated  by  his  own  bishop  and  by  others,  at  the  same  time 
that  great  saints  were  defending  his  cause,  and  when  God 
seemed  to  have  declared  for  him,  by  bringing  into  the  Church, 

1)  Augustine,  Heresies  4G;  F.pipiianh  s,  Jlcresic*,G6. 

(2)  Idem,  (Juxtoms  of  the  Manuhean s,  c.  18. 

(3)  Idem.  Aaaiuxt  Fauxt,  c.  2. 

<4)  Idem , ibidem,  c.  3.  (7)  Augustine,  Heretic *,  passim. 

(5)  Idem,  On  the  Two  S<nds,  c.  1.  18)  Ibidem. 

<fl)  Tdem,  On  Free  wm , jjassim.  (9)  Augustine,  Customs  of  the  Manicheans,  c.  18,19. 30 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ii) 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


through  him,  many  men  whom  she  regards  as  her  brightest 
ornaments.  After  his  death,  his  lot  is  what  it  was  while  he 
lived.  Saints  are  opposed  to  each  other  in  his  regard. 
Martyrs  have  written  his  apology,  and  martyrs  have  writ- 
ten his  condemnation.  Some  have  looked  upon  him  as  the 
greatest  master  the  Church  has  possessed  since  the  Apostles; 
others  have  detested  him  as  the  parent  of  all  the  heresies 
born  since  his  time.”  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  our  work 
to  enter  upon  a question  which  the  reader  can  better  settle, 
at  least  to  his  own  satisfaction,  by  comparing  the  argu- 
ments of  the  many  learned  men  who  have  discussed  the 
matter.  That  Origen  was  not  an  obstinate  heretic,  to  say 
the  least,  would  appear  from  the  following  passage  cited  by 
St.  Jerome,  and  taken  from  a letter  written  after  his  excom- 
munication at  Alexandria.  Complaining  that  his  writings 
have  been  mutilated  and  corrupted,  and  that  many  have 
been  ascribed  to  him  which  he  never  wrote,  he  says,  “ I am 
content  to  leave  my  enemies  and  my  calumniators  to  the 
judgments  of  God  ; I think  that  I am  obliged  to  pity  them 
more  than  to  hate  them,  and  I would  rather  pray  God  to 
have  mercy  on  them  than  wish  them,  any  evil,  for  we  are 
born  to  pronounce  blessings  and  not  malediction.”  (1) 


(1)  “The  olden  enemies  of  this  father,”  says  Berber,  “ carried  their  obstinacy  to  the  point 
of  accusing  him  of  approving  of  illicit  magic,  and  of  finding  no  crime  in  it.  Beausobre,  in 

his  History  of  Mdnichcixnu,  v.  2,  h.  9,  c.  18,  refutes  this  accusation Some  authors  have 

asserted  that  Origen  succumbed  during  the  persecution  of  Decius,  and  that  he  threw  Incense 
into  a sacrificial  fire,  in  order  to  escape  an  infamous  treatment  with  which  he  was  threatened. 
But  it  is  not  credible  that  so  courageous  a man  as  Origen  would  have  thus  contradicted  the 
lessons  given  by  himself  to  so  many  martyrs ; and  that  the  many  enemies  who  attacked  him, 
after  his  death,  would  not  have  mentioned  so  (xlious  a charge.  So  true  Is  it  that  a great 
reputation  is  frequently  a very  great  misfortune.”  Danial  Huet,  bishop  of  Avranches,  waa 
the  first  to  publish  the  exegetic  works  of  Origen  (10dm  1679),  in  2 v.,  fol.,  with  a learned 
monograph  entitled  Oiiycniana.  The  learned  Benedictine  of  St.  Maur,  La  Rue,  published. 
In  17«J,  the  complete  works ; and  the  reader  will  find  all  that  wq  have  from  the  pen  of  Ori- 
gen, together  with  a Latin  translation,  in  Mignes  ’ Palrology. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  in. 


FEBST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


Authors  differ  as  to  the  number  of  the  persecutions  which, 
the  Church  underwent  before  the  time  of  Constantine.  St. 
Augustine,  in  his  beautiful  work  on  the  City  of  God , book 
18,  c.  52,  gives  us  many  opinions,  and  declares  his  own  in- 
ability to  solve  the  question.  Paulus  Orosius  thought 
there  were  ten,  but  only  because  he  regarded  the  ten  plagues 
of  Egypt  as  prophetic  of  the  Pagan  onslaughts  on  the 
early  faithful.  Sulpicius  Severus  numbered  nine  ; Lactan- 
tius  five,  but  he  only  enumerates  those  the  instigators  of 
which  met  a violent  death  ; Prudentius  devotes  all  his  en- 
ergy to  a description  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Christians  un- 
der Nero  and  Decius.  But,  be  the  number  ten  or  less,  it  is 
certain  that  there  were  many  severe  persecutions,  and  that 
the  number  of  martyrs  was  large.  Reflections  upon  the 
fearful  sufferings  of  their  ancestors  in  the  faith  have  ever 
been  the  source  of  triumph,  rather  than  of  melancholy,  to 
the  more  modern  Christians,  and  their  polemicists  have 
drawn  from  these  persecutions  one  of  their  most  stringent 
arguments  wherewith  to  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Christian 
religion.  It  is  net  strange,  therefore,  that  writers  of  t\ie  Cffio- 
bon  stamp  should  endeavor  to  belittle  the  extent  of  these 
dire  visitations  of  brute  force,  and  to  palliate  in  every  way 
the  cruelties  by  which  they  were  accompanied.  Among  the 
many  men  of  note  who  have  bent  themselves  to  this  melan- 
choly and  ungracious  task,  sad  pre-eminence  is  claimed  by 
Yoltaire  ; but  in  the  contest  of  bad  faith  and  sophistry, 
distinction  should  also  be  awarded  to  Basnage,  John  Le- 
clerc,  Gibbon,  and  Henry  Dodwell.  The  last  named,  an 
Irish  author  of  the  seventeenth  centurv,  has  presented 

41 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


42 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


his  arguments  more  fully  than  any  of  his  brethren, 
and  hence  against  him  have  principally  been  directed  the 
efforts  of  most  Catholic  writers  who  have  treated  of  this 
subject.  Of  these,  the  most  satisfactory  are  Rinaldi,  on 
the  Persecutions  of  the  First  and  Second  Centuries  ; Ruinart, 
in  his  Preface  to  the  Acts  of  the  Martyrs  ; F.  Luchini,  in  a 
preface  to  his  Italian  translation  of  the  work  of  Ruinart ; 
and  Palma,  in  his  Historical  Lectures . 

Although  it  is  our  main  purpose  to  treat  of  those  perse- 
cutions which  were  visited  upon  the  early  Christians  by 
the  Pagans,  yet  we  cannot  omit,  at  the  commencement,  a 
mention  of  the  uprising  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord, 
excited  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  year  following 
His  death  (1;.  It  was  then  that  suffered  St.  Stephen,  the 
first  martyr,  and,  according  to  some  writers,  two  thousand 
others.  Nor  should  we  forget  the  outburst  of  Herod  Agrip- 
pa  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  eleventh  year  after  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ,  when  St.  Peter  was  put  in  chains,  and,  in  all 
probability  (2),  St.  James  the  Greater  put  to  death.  Some 
also  regard  as  a persecution  of  Christians  that  edict  of 
Claudius  by  which  all  “ Jews”  were  expelled  from  Rome, 
because,  as  Suetonius  says,  “ at  the  instigation  of  Chrest , 
they  were  guilty  of  tumults.”  Many  authors  exclude  this 
action  of  Claudius  from  the  list  of  persecutions,  on  account  of 
the  use  of  the  term  “Jews,”  and  because  of  the  name 
Chrest  being  assigned  to  the  Jewish  leader.  But  we  know 
that  in  those  days  the  Pagan  writers  often  spoke  of  the 
Christians  a3  Jews.  As  for  the  name  Chrest,  it  was  in  famil- 
iar use  among  the  Romans,  as  appears  from  many  inscrip- 
tions, and  from  Cicero,  book  2d  of  Epistles,  Epist.  8,  ad  Fain. 
Very  easily  indeed  might  the  Pagans  have  confounded  the 
name  of  Christ  with  that  of  Chrest , with  which  they  were 
mo  e familiar.  Palma  is  of  opinion  that  this  ejection  of  the 
“ Jews”  should  not  be  classed  among  the  Christian  perse- 
cutions, because  the  alleged  cause  of  the  edict  was  the  tu 
multuousness  of  the  victims,  not  their  religion.  But  very 


(1)  Petau.  Usher,  aud  TU  lemon  t assign  this  persecution  to  the  year  of  our  Lord’s  death : 
Baronio  places  It  In  the  year  85. 

( 2 > It  has  always  been  a Spanish  tradition  that  St.  James  preached  in  Spain,  but  there  *• 
no  solid  foundation  for  It. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


43 


frequently  the  Pagan  authorities,  in  assigning  a reason  for 
their  assaults  upon  the  Christians,  made  no  mention  of 
religion  ; nay,  they  not  seldom  put  forth  purely  political 
motives  as  an  excuse.  And  if,  as  seems  probable,  by  the  Chrest 
of  Suetonius  was  meant  the  Lord  of  the  Christians,  the 
religious  motive  is  plainly  indicated. 

To  the  emperor  Nero  (37  08)  is  to  be  assigned  the  first 
open  persecution  of  Christianity  by  Rome.  The  precise  year 
of  his  first  outburst  is  a subject  of  dispute  among  critics. 
Baron  10  regards  the  y *ar  00  as  the  date,  Eusebius  the  year 
70,  and  others  go  back  as  far  as  the  year  58.  The  probable 
date  is  that  assigned  by  Pagi,  namely,  the  month  of  August 
of  the  year  64,  in  the  consulate  of  Licanius  Bassus  and 
Marcus  Lie.  Crassus.  As  for  the  cause  of  the  persecution, 
authors  differ.  Hegesippus  and  Nicephorus  Calixtus  as- 
cribe it  to  the  destruction  of  the  impious  Simon  Magus, 
brought  about  by  the  prayers  of  St.  Peter.  Others  find 
the  cause  in  the  rage  of  Nero,  on  account  of  St.  Paul's  hav- 
ing restored  to  life  one  Patroclus,  whom  the  emperor  had 
put  to  death.  Another  reason  is  traced  by  some  to  the 
corrupt  habits  of  the  heretics  of  that  day,  which  had  brought 
the  Christian  name  into  terrible  disrepute  (1).  Some  again 
assign  the  reason  of  the  outbreak  to  the  ancient  law  of  the 
Roman  Senate  prohibiting  the  adoration  of  any  deity  not 
approved  of  by  that  body.  While  each  and  every  one  of 
these  causes  may  have  either  influenced  the  emperor,  or 
persuaded  the  people  to  acquiesce  in  the  decree,  the  real 
motive  of  the  persecution  seems  to  be  given  by  the  Pagan 
historian,  Tacitus  (2).  In  the  year  64,  the  city  of  Rome  was 
visited  by  a terrible  conflagration,  which,  according  to  this 
author  (3),  lasted  for  six  days.  It  was  bruited  around  that 
no  less  a personage  than  the  young  emperor  was  the  incen- 
diary, and  so  firm  a hold  did  the  idea  take  on  the  minds  of 
the  people,  that  Nero  was  forced  to  seek  some  means  of 
diverting  the  imminent  fury  of  the  Romans  from  himself. 
The  necessary  scapegoat  was  found  in  the  rapidly  growing 
sect  of  the  Christians.  This  body  of  religionists  were  in 

(1)  Justin  Martyr  ami  KuxeMux.  (2)  Annalx,  hook  15,  c.  44.  (3)  According  to  an  ai* 
cient  monumental  slab,  preserved  in  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome,  the  Are  lasted  nine  days. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


44 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


bad  odor  among  tlie  Romans.  They  were  popularly  sup* 
posed  to  be  guilty  of  secret  and  atrocious  crimes ; to  be  ani- 
mated by  a most  ferocious  hatred  towards  the  rest  of  man 
kind.  Against  there,  therefore,  was  the  indignation  of  the 
mob  directed.  In  a few  days  Rome  was  illuminated  by  an 
unwonted  light-  Torches  were  made  of  the  quivering  bodies 
of  thousands  o'  innocents  of  both  sexes  and  of  every  age, 
while  daily  use  was  made  of  every  torture  which  imagina- 
tion could  invent  for  the  amusement  of  a cruel  people. 
Dodwell  (lj  asserts  that  this  persecution  was  confined  tc 
the  city  of  Rome,  but  there  is  abundant  proof  that  it  ey 
tended  throughout  the  empire.  Tacitus  assigns  as  a reason 
for  it  that  the  Christians  were  accused  “not  so  much  ol 
the  crime  of  incendiarism,  as  of  a hatred  of  the  human  race,” 
which  charge  would  certainly  apply  equally  well  to  all  of 
them.  Again,  we  learn  from  an  epistle  of  the  younger 
Pliny  to  Trajan  (2)  that  while  he  was  pro-praetor  of  Bitky- 
nia,  many  Christians  having  been  sentenced  to  death,  he 
asked  the  emperor  Trajan  what  course  he  should  pursue  in 
their  regard,  and  that  he  was  answered  that  only  those 
Christians  should  be  prosecuted  whom  some  one  should 
accuse  by  name.  Now,  the  laws  in  accordance  with  which 
Pliny  and  Trajan  thus  acted  were  not  laws  made  by  Trajan, 
for  Tertullian  and  other  ancient  writers,  while  they  admit 
that  many  Christians  suffered  death  during  his  reign,  deny 
that  he  was  a persecutor.  Nor  could  they  have  been  the 
laws  promulgated  by  Domitian,  for,  according  to  Tortullian, 
they  were  repealed  by  that  emperor  himself;  according  to 
Eusebius,  they  were  abrogated  by  the  Senate  or  by  Nerva. 
And  they  could  not  have  been  laws  of*  the  old  republic  ; for 
while  we  know  from  Cicero  (3)  that  no  new  gods  were  to  be 
received  without  the  approbation  of  the  Senate,  yet  capital 
punishment  was  not  the  penalty  for  a violation  of  the  decree. 
It  follows  then  that  t'  e laws  under  which  Pliny  condemned 
.the  Bithynian  Christians  were  laws  of  Nero,  which  Aad  not 
been  cancelled  by  his  successors.  Therefore  the  persecu- 
tion decreed  by  that  emperor  was  not  restricted  to  the 
capital. 

<1)  Cyprianic  I>i*8ertat.im*%  no.  XI.  (2)  Book  It,  epist.  97.  (8)  On  Laws,  book  2,  c.  $ 


Digitized  by  o.ooQLe 


TOST  PERSECUTIONS  OP  THE  CHURCH. 


45 


Next  in  order  to  that  of  Nero  comes  the  persecution  of 
Domitian,  who  mounted  the  throne  in  the  year  81.  Baronio 
assigns  its  commencement  to  the  year  90 ; Pagi  prefers  the 
year  93  ; Rinaldi  agrees  with  St.  Jerome  in  placing  it  in 
the  year  94.  Some  writers  have  interpreted  the  first  epistle 
of  St.  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  as  indicating  that  the 
cause  of  the  eruption  is  to  be  found  in  the  dissensions  which 
existed  in  the  Christian  ranks.  But  it  is  more  likely  that 
its  origin  must  be  ascribed  to  the  virulent  hatred  ot  the 
populace  towards  the  new  religion.  It  was  during  the  first 
year  of  this  persecution,  according  to  Tertullian,  that  the 
Apostle  St.  John  was  plunged  into  a caldron  of  boiling  oil, 
and,  emerging  intact,  was  exiled  to  Patmos.  After  St.  John, 
the  most  distinguished  victim  of  this  persecution  was  Fla- 
vius Clement  (1),  who  was  of  consular  rank,  and,  although  a 
cousin  of  the  emperor,  was  executed  for  impiety  towards  the 
gods.  The  universality  and  cruelty  of  this  persecution  is 
impugned  by  Dodwell  and  his  imitators,  but  the  testimony 
of  ancient  and  reliable  authors  proves  that  it  was  general 
and  terrific.  Dio  Cassius  says,  “ In  the  same  year  Domitian 
put  to  death,  among  many  others,  Flavius  Clement,  although 
he  was  his  own  cousin,  and  had  for  wife  Flavia  Domitilla,  a 
relative  of  his ; both  were  charged  with  impiety  towards  the 

gods,  and  many  others were  condemned  for  this  crime, 

some  being  executed,  and  some  despoiled  of  their  goods. 
Domitilla  was  merely  exiled  to  Padetaria,  but  he  ordered 
Glabrio,  who  had  been  a magistrate  under  Trajan,  to  be 
killed.”  Brutius,  a Pagan  author  of  the  second  century,  is 
authority  to  Eusebius  for  asserting  that  under  Domitian 
many  Christians  were  put  to  death.  It  is  true  that  we  have 
but  comparatively  few  authentic  records  of  martyrdoms 
in  this  and  previous  reigns,  but  that  want  does  not  neces- 
sarily bring  comfort  to  those  who  would  palliate  the  cruelty 
of  the  persecutors.  At  this  time  there  was  a dearth  of 
writers  among  the  Christians,  not  because  they  were  at  all 
lacking  in  men  or  culture, but  because,  as  Papebroch  observes, 

(1)  Baronio  seems  to  doubt  as  to  his  martyrdom,  on  account  of  the  silence  of  the  ancient 
Martyrolofries.  In  the  year  1725,  the  body  of  this  martyr  was  found  in  the  ancient  basilica 
of  St.  Clement  at  Rome.  Traces  of  blood  were  found  in  the  leaden  case,  as  well  as  tha 
srlass  bottle  usually  and  only  placed  with  the  body  of  a martyr.  On  the  case  were  inscribed 
Uk.  words,  “ Here  is  happily  buried  the  martyr,  Flavius  Clement.” 


Digitized  by 


Google 


.46 


STUHIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8TORY. 


in  the  midst  of  consternation  people  are  not  likely  to  make 
formal  records  of  events.  The  ecclesiastical  notaries,  one  of 
whose  duties  it  was  to  put  on  record  the  important  events 
of  their  churches,  were  certainly  not  established  before  the 
time  of  Domitian,  and  probably  afterwards.  And  we  know 
that  in  the  Calendars,  Fast  a,  Diptychs,  and  other  monu- 
ments of  the  time,  it  was  not  the  custom  to  insert  any  but 
the  names  of  those  martyrs  who  were  venerated  in  the  par- 
ticular church  owning  the  document.  Sometimes  only  those 
were  recorded  whose  “natal  days”  were  celebrated  in 
pomp  and  by  public  sacrifice.  Had  the  persecution  of 
Domitian  been  comparatively  light,  as  Dodwell  contends, 
the  Christians  would  scarcely  have  styled  him  “another 
Nero;”  Lactantius  would  not  have  called  him  “no  less  a 
tyrant Tertullian  would  not  have  applied  to  him  the 
phrase,  “heir  to  a portion  of  Nero’s  cruelty.” 

After  the  death  of  Domitian,  in  the  year  96,  the  Christians 
experienced  a little  rest,  although  isolated  cases  of  martyr- 
dom were  of  not  unfrequent  occurence  (1).  Nerva  rescinded 
the  cruel  decrees  of  his  predecessor,  allowed  the  exiles  to 
return,  and  ordered  that  hereafter  no  one  should  prosecute 
the  “ Jewish  sect  ” for  impiety.  But  with  the  reign  of  Trajan 
(y.  98)  terror  again  visited  the  Christian  communities.  This 
persecution  is  styled  the  third  by  Sulpicius  Severus,  St.  Au- 
gustine, and  Orosius.  As  to  the  precise  date  qf  its  beginning 
critics  are  again  at  fault.  Baronio  assigns  it  to  the  first 
year  of  the  new  reign;  Pagi  places  it  in  the  year  111; 
Usher,  with  more  plausibility,  names  the  year  106  (2). 
Tertullian  and  Eusebius  show  that  Trajan  issued  no  new 
decrees  against  the  Christians,  and  he  is  generally  regarded  as 
one  of  those  “ good  princes”  under  whom,  as  the  ancient 
author  of  “ Deaths  of  the  Persecutors  ” says,  “ the  Church 
suffered  no  assault  from  the  enemy.”  But  even  if  Trajan 
merely  executed  the  old  decrees  of  Nero,  he  no  less  merits 
the  name  of  persecutor.  During  his  reign  happened  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  in  the  year 

(1)  If  we  accept  as  true  the  narrative  of  Polycrates,  which  is  defended  by  the  Bollandlstt 

and  by  Tillemout,  St.  Timothy  suffered  at  this  time.  However,  some  hold  that  he  waa 
killed  during  a popular  tumult.  e ™ 

(2)  Note*  to  Martyrdom  of  St.  Ignatius. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


47 


107.  In  the  very  beginning  of  this  reign,  according  to  Pear- 
son, was  crucified  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  Simeon,  the 
son  of  Cleophas.  Under  Trajan  also  suffered  the  Supreme 
Pontiffs,  St.  Clement  ( liomanus ),  Evarist,  and  Alexander ; 
the  martyrs,  Nereus,  Achilleus,  Sulpitius,  Severianus,  and 
Cesareus.  . That  this  persecution  was  widespread  and  vir- 
ulent appears  from  the  following  words  of  the  author  of 
the  Acts  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  the  authenticity  and 
value  of  which  work  are  readily  admitted  by  such  Protes- 
tant critics  as  Usher  and  Pearson.  In  the  ninth  year  of 
his  reign,  waxing  arrogant  on  account  of  his  victories  over 
the  Scythians  and  Dacians  and  many  other  peoples,  and 
deeming  only  wanting  to  his  universal  domination  the  re- 
ligious body  of  Christians,  Trajan  compelled  all  the  pious 
livers  to  either  sacrifice  or  die,  threatening  them  witli  per- 
secution unless  they  would  join  in  the  worship  of  the  de- 
mons along  with  the  rest  of  the  people.’’  The  same  fact 
is  shown  by  St.  Polycarp,  who,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  besought  them  to  imitate  the  patience  of  Ignatius, 
Zosimus*  and  Rufus  (martyrs).  And  Tertullian.  speaking 
to  the  proconsul  Scapula,  narrates  the  cruelties  of  Arrius 
Antoninus,  Trajan's  lieutenant  in  proconsular  Asia.  But 
no  other  authority  need  be  adduced  than  that  which  we 
have  already  read  in  the  younger  Pliny,  and  for  which 
Tertullian  bitterly  upbraids  the  emperor  as  cruelly  incon- 
sistent : “ He  orders  them  to  be  left  undisturbed,  as  in- 
nocent ; he  commands  them  to  be  punished  as  guilty.  He 
spares,  and  he  is  cruel ; he  dissimulates,  and  takes  cogni- 
zance. Why  dost  thou  subject  thyself  to  censure  ? If  thou 
condemnest,  why  dost  thou  not  investigate?  If  thou  dost 
not  inquire,  why  not  acquit?’’  Although  he  promulgated 
no  new  laws  against  the  Christians,  lie  left  the  persecution 
to  the  discretion  of  the  prefects,  and  it  is  not  likely  that 
Pliny  was  the  most  cruel  or  corrupt  of  those  satraps. 

The  persecution  under  Adrian  was  called  by  Eusebius 
an  appendix  of  that  of  Trajan  ; Sulpieius  Severus  styles  it 
the  fourth  of  the  list.  According  to  Tertullian  and  Melito 
of  Sardis,  this  emperor  issued  no  edicts  against  the  Chris- 
tians ; but  as  the  present  question  is  one  of  fact,  and  not 


Digitized  by 


Google 


48 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  name,  we  cannot  admit  with  Dodwell  that  under  his 
rule  there  were  no  persecutions.  St.  Jerome  tells  us 
Adrian  was  a devotee  of  Paganism  ; Spartianus  lauds  him  as 
most  careful  in  fulfilling  his  duties  as  Pontiff ; Tertullian 
cails  him  an  untiring  seeker  into  curious  things,  and  says 
that  he  followed  all  sorts  of  magical  arts.  With  such 
dispositions,  one  would  at  least  suspect  him  of  being  un- 
likely to  leave  the  path  of  his  predecessors.  Baronio  as- 
signs as  a reason  for  this  fourth  persecution  the  tumult- 
uousness of  the  Jews.  Some  writers  find  its  occasion  in 
the  abominable  habits  of  the  Carpocratian  heretics,  which 
caused  the  people  to  rage  against  all  Christians.  At  any 
rate,  the  persecution  took  place,  as  we  shall  show.  Tille- 
mont  adduces  the  Acts  of  St.  Eustachius,  who  perished 
during  the  reign  of  Adrian,  but  more  severe  critics  reject 
the  documents.  But  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  Acts  of  St . Stjmphorosa  awl  lwr  Seven  Sons , put  to 
death  by  Adrian  at  his  beautiful  villa  at  Tivoli,  after  he 
had  already  destroyed  her  husband  and  his  brother.  From 
these  Acts  we  learn  that,  about  the  same  time,  a ve’ry  large 
number  of  martyrs  were  destroyed.  Dodwell  asserts  that, 
with  the  exception  of  Pope  St.  Telesphorus,  no  martyr  fell 
under  Adrian.  But  we  have  an  inscription  from  the  cata- 
combs of  St.  Callixtus  published  by  Arringhi,  in  his  Sub- 
terranean Rome , which  proves  the  contrary.  It  reads  as 
follows:  “In  the  time  of  the  emperor  Adrian,  at  length 

rested  in  peace  the  youth  Marius,  an  officer  of  the  army, 
who  lived  long  enough,  since  he  yielded  with  his  blood  his 
life  for  Christ.  His  well  wishers  placed  this  with  tears  and 
fear.”  The  word  “ fear  ” would  certainly  indicate  some 
anticipation  of  future  trouble  to  the  survivors.  The  testi- 
mony of  St.  Justin  Martyr  may  be  adduced  as  proving  the 
existence  of  persecution,  probably  under  Adrian,  and  if  not, 
certainly  since  the  time  of  Domitian,  for  he  was  born  in  the 
year  105,  and  speaks  of  what  he  saw.  “While  I was  yet  a 
follower  o'  the  Platonic  philosophy,  and  heard  the  Chris- 
tians pursued  by  calumny,  and  saw  them  stand  intrepid 
before  death  and  all  formidable  things,  I thought  to  myself 
that  such  persons  could  not  be  given  to  vice  and  voluptu- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH, 


49 


ousness.”  Dodwell  and  his  imitators  tell  us  that  Adrian 
gave  rescripts  of  exemption  in  favor  of  Christians.  This  is 
true  ; but  if  persecution  had  not  been  going  on, where  would 
have  been  any  occasion  for  the  exemption?  The  facts  are 
these.  Adrian  was  passing  the  winter,  probably  of  the 
year  126,  at  Jerusalem,  and,  initiating  himself  into  the 
Eleusinian  mysteries,  his  Pagan  zeal  was  redoubled,  and 
the  Christians  felt  its  effects.  At  this  juncture,  a petition 
was  presented  to  him  by  Quadratus,  a disciple  of  the  Lord, 
(1)  and  Aristedes,  an  Athenian  philosopher,  begging  for  in- 
dulgence to  the  Christians.  On  account  of  these  supplica- 
tions, and  because  of  a letter  of  Sc*renus  Granius  (or  Grani- 
anus),  an  Asiatic  proconsul,  urging  that  it  was  ill-seeming 
to  condemn  Christians  merely  on  account  of  popular  clam- 
or, a decree  was  issued  to  Minucius  Fundanus,  successor 
to  Granius,  stopping  the  persecution.  This  rescript  of 
Adrian  was  sent,  according  to  Eusebius,  not  only  to  Funda- 
nus, but  to  many  other  prefects,  and  whs  afterwards  quoted 
by  Melito  of  Sardis,  in  his  Apology  to  Marcus  Aurelius. 

Antoninus  Pius  reigned  from  the  year  138  to  the  year  161. 
He  was  singularly  clement,  and  of  very  affable  manners. 
Nevertheless,  that  his  Christian  subjects  had  no  reason  to 
revere  his  memory,  we  must  judge  from  the  following  in- 
scription (2)  found  in  the  Callixtan  catacombs,  and  dedicat- 
ed to  the  memory  of  a martyr  named  Alexander,  who  was 
killed  under  Antonine.  “ Oh  ! unhappy  times,  when,  in  the 
midst  of  sacred  things,  and  occupied  with  our  prayers,  we 
cannot  be  safe  even  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth  ; what  more 
miserable  than  life,  and  what  more  miserable  than  death, 
when  we  cannot  be  buried  by  our  friends?  ” And  Justin 
Martyr,  in  his  Apology , No.  1,  expressly  charges  Antonine 
with  a persecution  of  the  Christians. 

Marcus  Aurelius  succeeded  his  father-in-law  Antoninus 
Pius  in  the  year  161,  and  reigned  until  the  year  180.  He 
was  quite  a philosopher,  having  donned  the  mantle  of  the 
Stoics  when  but  eleven  years  of  age.  A good  warrior  when 

• 

(1)  H allot x thinks  that  this  Quadratus  is  the  “Angel  of  Philadelphia  ’ to  whom  the 
Lord  speaks  In  the  Apocalypse. 

(2)  Arringhi,  Subterranean  Rome , book  3,  c.  22. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


50 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


necessary,  he  was  yet  a lover  of  peace,  and  his  general 
course  was  more  beneficial  to  his  subjects  than  that  of  most 
Eoman  emperors.  Some  authors  have  scented  the  odor  of 
a Christian  spirit  in  his  Mt  ditai ions',  but  that  he  persecuted 
the  Christians,  is  beyond  the  possibility  of  a doubt.  After 
the  martyrdom  of  St.  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  dis- 
ciple of  St.  John,  the  widowed  churcli  sent  to  all  the  other 
churches  of  Asia  an  epistle  describing  the  sufferings  of  the 
holy  bishop  and  of  his  twelve  companions.  He  had  been 
burnt  at  the  stake  in  the  year  169,  and  the  fathers  allude 
to  many  other  martyrdoms  which  happened  about  the  same 
time.  Eusebius,  in  his  Book  4,  c.  26,  gives  many  passages 
from  an  apology  which  Melito  of  Sardis  presented  to  Aure- 
lius, interceding  for  the  Christians,  and  we  find  him  insist- 
ing that  no  more  cruel  punishment  could  be  visited  upon 
them  if  they  were  enemies  of  the  state.  St.  Irenaeus  is 
supposed  to  be  the  author  of  an  epistle  which,  during  this 
reign,  the  churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  sent  to  those  of 
Asia  and  Phrygia,  and  in  it  we  find  a graphic  description  of 
the  persecutions  in  Gaul.  And  if  the  sufferings  of  the 
Christians  at  this  time  were  not  great  and  widespread,  why 
so  much  anxiety  and  eloquence  as  are  displayed  in  the 
Apdocjivs  of  Apollinaris,  Athenagoras,  and  Miltiades,  all 
written  at  this  period? 

From  the  death  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  in  the  year  180, 
until  the  year  197,  the  Church  of  God  enjoyed  a spell  of 
tranquillity.  Outbursts  of  popular  hatred  certainly  occur- 
red now  and  then,  but  no  new  law  was  enacted  against  the 
Christians,  and  the  old  laws  fell  into  desuetude.  But  in 
the  year  197,  Septimius  Sevorus  was  induced  to  shake  the 
dust  from  the  old  edicts,  and  five  years  afterwards  he  prom- 
ulgated a new'  one  of  the  severest  nature.  The  following 
passages  of  Eusebius  would  sufficiently  indicate  the  quality 
of  this  persecution.  In  Book  6,  c.  1,  he  says  “ when  Sever- 
us  had  excited  a persecution  against  the  Church,  through- 
out all  the  churches  of  the  world  were  perfected  illustrious 
martyrdoms  on  the  part  of  athletes  contesting  for  piety.” 
And  in  c.  2,  “Therefore  in  the  tenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Severus, when  there  burst  forth  a most  devastating 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


51 


fire  of  persecution,  and  innumerable  martyrs  were  crowned.” 
Finally,  in  c.  7,  “ He  thought  that  then  was  imminent  the 
coming  of  Antichrist,  so  vehemently  were  the  souls  of  many 
affected  by  this  persecution  again  st  our  people.”  The  words 
of  Dion  Cassius  are  clear,  “ He  visited  with  death  a great 
number  of  men  who  were  of  equal  nobility  and  honor  with 
himself.”  Equally  plain  is  the  saying  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, in  the  2d  Book  of  his  Stromuton , **  For  us  are  daily 
redundant  the  fountains  of  martyrdom  ; with  our  eyes  we  see 
those  who  are  roasted,  who  are  broken  apart,  who  are  be- 
headed.” A^id  in  Book  4,  lie  says  that  they  are  so  treated 
merely  “because  they  are  Christians.”  These  testimonies 
are  enough  to  show  that  the  persecution  of  Severus  was 
bloody  indeed  ; as  to  its  length,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Dod- 
well  errs  when  he  states  that  it  ivas  a temporary  storm.  In 
his  address  to  Scapula,  who  had  been  sent  as  proconsul 
into  Africa  towards  the  end  of  the  persecution,  Tertullian 
describes  the  course  of  procedure  of  no  less  than  six  succes- 
sive proconsuls,  which  certainly  proves  that  the  attack  wa& 
not  a passing  one. 

The  next  open  persecution  was  that  of  the  emperor  Max- 
irnin;  but  before  we  enter  upon  any  account  of  it,  we  must 
say  a few  words  in  regard  to  the  reign  of  Alexander  Severus 
(222-235).  This  sovereign  always  manifested  a kind  of  be- 
nevolence towards  the  Christians ; his  household  was  filled 
with  them;  his  mother  was  “a  good  woman,”  and  associat- 
ed familiarly  with  the  new  religionists.  Upon  these  slight 
foundations,  some  critics  have  built  a theory  that  Alexan- 
der was  a Christian.  As  for  Julia  Mammaea,  the  mother 
of  the  emperor,  we  have  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome  and 
Eusebius  that  she  was  given  to  devotion,  and  they  tell  us 
that  she  once  invited  Origen  to  the  palace,  and  that  she 
listened  to  his  doctrinal  explanations.  But  they  do  not  say 
that  she  was  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  ; on  the 
contrary,  Eusebius  insinuates  that  the  Egyptian  doctor  left 
immediately  for  home  ; so  we  may  suppose  that  the  fair  Julia 
found  his  maxims  too  uncompromisingly  severe  for  her  deli- 
cate constitution.  Nor  does  the  testimony  of  Lampridius* 
in  his  Life  of  Alexander,  go  to  show  that  Julia  embraced 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


£2 


8TUDEE8  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Christianity,  for  while  he  certainly  styles  her  a holy  woman, 
he  speaks  in  a manner  which  plainly  proves  that  he  uses 
the  term  “holy”  in  anything  but  a Christian  sense.  He 
says  she  was  “a  holy  woman,  but  miserly — fond  of  gold 
and  silver.”  Such  was  not  a characteristic  of  Christian  sanc- 
tity, especially  in  the  primitive  ages.  As  to  Alexander  him- 
self, we  learn  from  Lampridius  that  he  “ conceded  privi- 
leges to  the  Jews,  and  allowed  the  Christians  to  exist,”  which 
was  very  much  from  a Roman  emperor,  but  was  not  equiva- 
lent to  becoming  a Christian.  If  this  passage  is  conclusive 
for  any  theory  of  conversion,  it  proves  that  Alexander  be- 
came a Jew  rather  than  a Christian.  And  if  the  emperor 
really  revered  our  religion,  why  was  he  content  with  simply 
permitting  its  votaries  “to  exist”?  Why  did  he  not  abro- 
gate the  cruel  laws  against  them  which  were  exposing  them 
to  the  uncertain  disposition  of  each  individual  prefect?  Nor 
must  we  forget  that  one  of  Alexander’s  most  trusted  ad- 
ministrators was  Domitius  Ulpianus,  a man  who  used  his 
power  to  the  utmost  to  gratify  his  hatred  towards  the  Chris- 
tians, and  who,  we  learn  from  Lactantius  (1),  “compiled  a 
collection  of  the  nefarious  rescripts  of  the  emperors  in  re- 
gard to  the  duties  of  a proconsul,  that  he  might  show  what 
punishments  ought  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  adorers  of  God.” 
Had  Alexander  been  a Christian,  he  would  have  removed 
from  this  and  similar  men  the  temptation  and  power  to 
persecute.  Of  no  value  whatever  is  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  fact,  narrated  by  Lampridius,  that  the  emperor 
preserved  in  the  oratory,  where  he  made  his  matutinal  de- 
votions, an  image  of  Christ.  This  image  he  cherished,  but 
among  those  of  Apollonius,  Abraham,  Orpheus,  “ and  such 
like  Gods.”  Nor  were  all  the  images  in  Alexander’s  oratory 
those  of  revered  personages,  for  we  know  from  the  same 
L ampridius  that  he  kept  therein  the  image  of  Alexan- 
ih »r  the  Great, whose  drunkenness  and  cruelty  he  condemned. 
The  other  arguments  adduced  by  those  who  have  alleged 
Christianity  of  Alexander  Severus  are  of  no  moment 
whatever. 

After  the  assassination  of  Alexander  Severus  in  Gaul,  in 

(1)  Imt.  Dir.,  book  5,  c.  XI. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


53 


the  year  235,  the  troops  proclaimed  as  emperor  the  burly 
Maximin.  The  son  of  a Goth,  his  only  staff  in  the  struggle 
of  life  the  possession  of  herculean  strength,  he  was  the 
right  material  for  the  forces  of  hell  at  a time  wh  en  they  re- 
lied upon  brute  force  more  than  upon  the  depraved  reason 
of  man.  His  first  move  against  Christianity  appears  to 
have  been  instigated  by  a spirit  of  intense  personal  hatred 
against  the  family  of  his  easy-going  predecessor.  The  house- 
hold was  filled  with  Christians,  and  its  heads  were  favorably 
disposed  towards  the  new  religion ; that  was  sufficient  to 
unleash  the  hounds  of  prey.  His  first  step  was  to  pounce 
upon  the  ministers  of  religion  : the  shepherds  removed,  the 
flock  would  soon  succumb.  Before  long  the  persecution 
spread  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  empire, 
and  was  felt  the  more  terribly,  says  Firmilian  of  Cappado- 
cia, because  several  years  of  comparative  peace  had  unac- 
customed the  victims  to  such  danger.  For  three  years  Max- 
imin reigned,  and  wielded  his  bloody  scourge,  and  during 
that  time  the  Martyrology  received  many  of  its  noblest 
additions. 

The  poet  Prudentius  (1)  immediately  connects  the  Decian 
with  the  Neronian  persecution,  saying  nothing  of  the  in- 
tervening ones  we  have  noticed.  But  this  by  no  means 
favors  the  theory  of  Dodwell  as  to  the  lightness  of  these 
.afflictions.  He  was  a poet,  and  in  accordance  with  poetic 
license,  chose  what  he  deemed  the  fitter  subject  for  his 
verse,  even  though  he  sinned  against  the  canons  of  chrono- 
logical criticism.  The  persecutors  whom  he  omitted  did  not 
furnish  the  material  to  his  taste,  for  Prudentius  seems  to 
-gloat  in  a picture  of  bloody  horror.  The  emperors  inter- 
vening between  Decius  and  Domitian  preserved  the  forms 
of  law  in  their  trials,  and  did  not  adopt  those  terrific  and 
exquisite  tortures,  to  a description  of  which  he  owes  his  rep- 
utation. Hence  he  slighted  them,  and  jumped  at  once  to 
the  more  congenial  of  drawing  the  horrors  of  Decius. 
As  for  Domitian,  L \t  y likely  excused  him  from  -pc c^i 
reproach,  because  he  L 1 finally  stopped  the  persecution.  It 
is  a remarkable  fact  that  many  ancient  writers  (Tertullian, 

(1)  Against  Symniachus , book  II. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


54 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


for  instance)  seem  to  have  regarded  as  comparatively  “ good  ** 
those  emperors  who  restricted  their  lieutenants  in  persecu- 
tion to  due  process  of  law,  and  who  tolerated  only  the  pre- 
scribed punishments ; while  they  almost  confine  their  in- 
vectives to  those  who  allowed  full  vent  to  individual  hate, 
cupidity,  and  superstition.  With  this  remark  as  to  the 
silence  of  Prudentius,  we  take  up  the  persecution  of  Decius, 
who  mounted  the  imperial  throne  in  the  year  249,  and 
reigned  for  two  years.  He  affected,  or  perhaps  really  felt, 
great  zeal  for  a reformation  of  Roman  habits  and  for  a res- 
toration of  the  primitive  “ virtues  ” of  the  ancient  republic. 
To  bring  about  this  end,  he  fancied  a persecution  of  the 
new  and  foreign  religion  would  tend.  The  text  of  h edict 
has  perished,  but  we  know  from  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
(in  Eusebius,  b.  G,  c.  41)  that  it  was  “ horrible  and  terrifie 
enough  to  frighten  the  elect.”  In  his  life  of  the  holy  Thau- 
maturge, St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  is  very  explicit  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  learn  that  “the  emperor  ordered  the  prefects  and 
magistrates  to  force  the  Christians  by  terror  and  by  every 
kind  of  torture,  to  the  worship  of  the  gods.”  He  tlireatened 
his  subordinates  with  severe  punishment  for  any  remissness 
in  their  task,  and  hence  they  neglected  every  duty  of  their 
positions  to  devote  their  time  to  the  extirpation  of  Christi- 
anity. Forms  of  torture  hitherto  unknown  were  adopted, 
and  the  terrible  engines  were  kept  ever  exposed  to  view,  as 
an  earnest  of  the  power  and  will  of  the  authorities.  It  was* 
during  this  persecution  that  certain  magistrates,  moved  by 
greed  or  by  pity,  devised  the  system  of  certificates  of  sacri- 
fice (i HMli ),  by  means  of  which  any  unfortunate  recusant 
could  escape  from  both  death  and  open  denial  of  his  faith. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  treat  of  these  backsliders  in  an 
apposite  dissertation.  Suffice  it  now  to  remark  that  by  this 
cunning  device  the  persecution  of  Decius  became  noted  as 
the  first,  if  not  the  only  one,  in  w hich  any  large  number  of 
the  baptized  failed  to  confess  God  before  men. 

The  emperor  Valerian  ascended  the  throne  in  the  year 
255,  and  associated  with  himself  as  C;esar  his  son  Gallienus. 
For  two  years  he  showed  himself  kind  to  the  Christians,, 
but  he  finally  allowed  himself  to  be  persuaded  into  per- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


55 


«ecutiou  by  liis  favorite,  Macrianus  the  Praetorian.  His 
first  efforts  were  restricted  to  the  exiling  of  the  clergy  and 
the  prohibition  of  Christian  assemblies,  but  he  soon  let 
loose  the  full  force  of  persecution  throughout  the  empire. 
In  the  Acts  of  St.  Cyprian , we  find  the  proconsul  Paternus 
thus  addressing  the  holy  prelate  : “ The  most  sacred  em- 
perors Valerianus  and  Gallienus  have  deigned  to  write  to 
me,  ordering  that  those  who  do  not  follow  the  Homan  re- 
ligion, should  at  least  acknowledge  the  Roman  ceremonies.” 
St.  Cyprian  refusing,  he  is  condemned  to  exile,  and  Pater- 
nus continues,  “They  have  also  commanded  that  assem- 
blies be  held  in  no  places,  and  that  no  one  enter  the  ceme- 
teries ; if  any  one  violates  this  salutary  precept,  he  shall  be 
beheaded.”  Dionysius  ot  Alexandria  (in  Eusebius,  b.  7,  c 
XI.)  narrates  the  experience  of  himself  and  companions. 
The  prefect  iEmilian  said  to  them,  “You  will  be  sent  into 

the  Libyan  region,  to  the  place  called  Cephro ; you 

will  not  be  allowed  to  hold  meetings,  or  to  enter  the  places 
you  call  cemeteries.”  In  St.  Cyprian's  77tli  epistle,  to  the 
confessors  in  the  mines,  we  are  informed  how  a great  part 
of  his  flock  had  already  flown  to  heaven  ; how  numbers  of 
others  lay  in  loathsome  dungeons,  lacerated  by  scourgings  ; 
how  many  more  were  dragging  out  a painful  existence  in 
the  mines,  and  all  simply  because  they  were  Christians. 
“And  a large  part  of  the  people,”  he  tells  the  confessors, 
“ following  your  example,  have  also  confessed  the  faith,  and 
have  been  crowned  ; they  are  united  with  you  by  the  ties 
of  a strong  charity,  nor  are  they  separated  from  their  prel- 
ates by  prisons  or  by  mines.  Nor  are  virgins  absent  from 
this  number.  And  even  among  the  boys,  there  is  a virtue 
greater  than  their  age,  which  exceeds  their  years  in  the 
glory  of  their  confession.”  After  a life  of  incredible  labor 
and  fortitude,  St.  Cyprian  consummated  his  victory  by  a 
bloody  death  during  this  persecution,  in  the  year  258.  At 
this  time  also  suffered  Pope  St.  Sixtus  II.  and  St.  Law- 
rence the  deacon.  Finally,  towards  the  end  of  the  year 
260,  while  warring  with  the  Persian  monarch  Sapor,  Vale- 
rian was  taken  prisoner.  Gallienus  paid  no  heed  to  his 
father’s  plight,  but  at  once  seized  the  throne,  and  one  of 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


56 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


his  first  acts  was  to  order  a cessation  of  the  persecu- 
tion. 

in  the  next  ebullition  of  Pagan  hate  against  the  growing 
Church,  though  it  is  generally  styled  the  persecution  of 
Diocletian,  there  figure  two  emperors  and  three  Caesars. 
After  the  assassination  of  Numerian  in  the  year  284,  the 
army,  which  was  marching  home  from  Persia,  proclaimed 
Diocletian  emperor.  Two  years  afterwards,  this  prince 
chose  as  colleague  his  old  companion  in  arms,  Maximian 
Hercules;  while  in  the  year  292,  he  appointed  as  Caesars 
Constantius  Chlorus  and  Galerius  Maximian.  Deciding 
then  to  divide  the  empire,  he  made  the  following  partition. 
He  reserved  to  himself  the  provinces  located  beyond  the 
iEgean  ; to  Galerius  Maximian,  he  assigned  Thrace  and 
Illyria  ; to  Maximian  Hercules,  he  gave  Italy,  Africa,  and 
their  islands  ; to  Constantius  Chlorus  he  presented  Gaul, 
and  this  prince  soon  added  Britain  and  Spain.  Of  very 
different  characters  were  these  princes  whom  Diocletian 
thus  raised  to  power.  Galerius,  according  to  the  author  of 
the  “ Deaths  of  the  Persecutors,”  was  “ more  wicked  than 
any  evil  man  wdio  ever  lived,”  but  he  seems  to  have  been 
possessed  of  military  talent.  Maximian  Hercules  was 
ferocious  and  depraved,  but  was  a brave  combatant,  and 
nothing  better.  Constantius  Chlorus  was  praised  by  both 
Christians  and  Pagans  as  an  “ amiable  and  venerable  man 
although  not  a Christian,  he  adored  one  only  God.  The 
prime  cause  of  Diocletian’s  persecution  was  Galerius  ; 
critics  dispute  as  to  the  precise  date  of  its  beginning,  but 
the  best  arguments  assign  it  to  the  year  303.  It  did  not 
end  until  long  after  the  abdication  of  Diocletian,  which 
happened  in  the  year  305.  After  this  event,  the  western 
Christians  enjoyed  some  tranquillity,  but  Galerius  contin- 
ued the  bloody  work  in  the  east  until  the  year  311,  when, 
feeling  himself  at  the  point  of  death,  he  issued  an  edict 
for  its  cessation.  Peace  was  not  everywhere  restored  un- 
til the  year  313,  in  the  third  consulate  of  Constantine  and 
Licinius. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  previous  persecutions,  so  in  this* 
one  of  Diocletian,  the  belittlers  of  Christianity  endeavor 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FIRST  PERSECUTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  5T 

to  show  that  it  was  of  small  account,  and  that  very  little 
damage  was  effected.  To  this,  more  than  palliation  of  the 
imperial  butchers,  let  the  first  answer  be  given  by  Euse- 
bius. In  book  1,  c.  13,  of  his  Life  of  Constantine , ha- 
says  of  Diocletian  and  his  companion  princes;  “ They  pol- 
luted, as  with  civil  war,  their  subject  provinces  with  the 
slaughter  of  women  as  well  as  of  men.”  Lactantius  thought 
differently  from  Dodwell,  Voltaire,  and  Gibbon,  upon  this 
matter,  for  he  thus  descants  upon  the  imperial  cruelty.  “ If 
it  ever  pleased  victors  to  be  so  furious  towards  the  con- 
quered, they  did  no  more  than  to  kill  them,  or  to  lead 
them  into  slavery.  But  this  is  unspeakable,  that  they 

should  so  treat  those  who  can  do  no  harm Then, 

they  torture  them  with  the  most  exquisite  kinds  of 

punishments ; they  bend  over  them  with  all  the 

powers  of  their  slaughter-house,  as  though  they  thirst  for 
blood,  ....  and  what  Caucasus,  what  India,  ever  raised 

such  bloody  and  ruthless  beasts? That  person  is  a 

beast,  by  whose  single  wish  everywhere  flows  the  purple 
gore;  everywhere  cruel  tears,  everywhere  panic,  and  the 
multiplied  image  of  death.  No  one  can  rightly  describe  the 
ferocity  of  this  animal,  w'hicli,  though  it  crouches  in  one 
spot,  nevertheless  grinds  its  iron  teeth  through  the  universe,, 
and  not  only  consumes  the  entrails  of  men,  but  crunches 
their  very  bones,  and  even  rages  against  their  ashes,  lest 
they  should  have  a place  of  burial.”  Lactantius  (260-325} 
was  an  eye-witness  of  what  he  describes,  and  he  certainly 
does  not  mince  matters  as  Gibbon  would  do.  The  an- 
cient author  of  the  Deaths  of  the  Persecutors  has  the  following, 
“ Diocletian,  who  always  wished  to  pass  for  intelligent  and 
astute,  inflamed  with  anger,  immediately  began  to  cut  his 
familiars  to  pieces.  He  sat  in  judgment,  and  burned  the 
innocents  with  fire  . . . ; the  emperor  became  infuriated,  not 
only  against  his  familiars,  but  at  every  one,  and,  first  of  all, 
he  compelled  his  daughter  Valeria  and  his  wife  Prisca  ta 
sacrificial  pollution  ....  Persons  of  every  age  and  sex  were 
thrust  into  the  flames,  not  merely  one  at  a time,  for  so 
great  was  the  multitude  that  they  were  collected  into  a heap, 
and  fire  built  around  them ; ik>  i?ss  violently  did  the 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


58 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


persecutions  fall  upon  other  people.'1  If  such  was  the 
course  of  Diocletian,  who  preferred  to  avoid  slaughter,  we 
can  imagine  what  must  have  been  the  conduct  of  the  fero- 
cious Maximian  Hercules  in  his  dominions.  The  last  quob- 
ed  author  tells  us  that  lie  “ willingly  obeyed”  when  Diocle- 
tian wrote  to  him  to  follow  his  example  in  his  treatment  of 
the  Christians.  That  Galerius  did  not  show  himself  far 
behind  in  anti-Christian  zeal,  goes  without  saying,  for  he 
was  the  prime  mover  of  the  persecution.  Shortly  after  the 
partition  of  the  empire,  Galerius  had  induced  Diocletian  to* 
give  the  rank  of  Ciesarto  Maximin  Daza.  his  nephew,  who 
afterwards  donned  the  purple.  In  regard  to  this  prince’s 
mode  of  procedure,  Eusebius,  in  Book  8,  c.  11,  says  that  he 
gave  the  Christians  “ fire  and  sword,  piercings  with  nails, 
wild  beasts,  deep  pools,  burnings,  cutting  off  of  limbs,  per- 
forations, boring  of  eyes,  mutilations  of  the  whole  body  ; add 
to  these,  starvation,  the  mines,  chains."  As  to  Severus, 
another  nephew  of  Galerius,  and  also  appointed  Ciesar,  he 
afterwards  obtained  Italy  and  Africa,  and  there  thoroughly 
carried  out  the  ideas  of  his  uncle.  When  Maxell tius,  the 
son  of  Maximian  Hercules,  gained  a footing  in  these  coun- 
tries, he  so  conducted  himself  as  to  be  styled,  by  Lucifer 
Calaritanus.  “ another  Nero.”  But  we  have  said  enough  to 
show  that  in  this  persecution  of  Diocletian,  as  in  all  the 
previous  ones,  there  was  sufficient  misery  to  warrant  a 
Christian  in  believing  that  only  the  hand  of  God  could  have 
sustained  our  ancestors  in  the  faith  in  their  fearful  trial.  (1) 

(U  The  apologists  of  Paganism  declare  that  the  Romans  were  Just! fled  hi  regarding  the 
Christian  Church  as  a dangerous  association,  since  the  now  religionists  were  almost  entire- 
ly separated  from  the  rest  of  society,  auil  were  submissive  only  to  their  pastors,  the  only 
judges  whom  they  acknowledged.  This  objection  was  answered  by  Tertmliun,  when  he 
declared  to  the  magistrates  that  the  Christians  were  separated  from  the  rest  of  society,  only 
in  the  exercises  of  religion  : in  everything  else,  th*»v  conducted  themselves  ns  did  other*  it- 
Izeas.  Our  adversaries  also  accuse  the  Christians  of  having  Insulted  the  magistrates  in  their 
tribunals,  and  of  thus  provoking  their  cruelty.  If  there  were  such  rases  of  misguided  zeal, 
the  Church  did  not  approve  of  such  nonduct.  In  the  Council  of  Elvira,  held  about  the  vear 
.100,  it  was  decreed  that  he  should  not  be  enrolled  among  the  martyrs  who  war  put  to  death, 
merely  for  breaking  the  idols. 


Digitized  by  Vjooole 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  RAPID  PROPAGATION  OF  CHRISTIANITY  A PROOF  OF  ITS 

DIVINITY. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  seen  what  terrible  strug- 
gles the  early  Church  was  compelled  to  undergo.  Rut  these 
were  not  the  only  obstacles  to  her  rapid  development ; hu- 
manly speaking,  the  severity  of  her  doctrine,  and  the  love  of 
pleasure  which  was  fostered  by  Paganism,  should  have  con- 
tributed more  to  retard  her  advancement  than  was  contribu- 
ted by  mere  brute  force.  Christian  writers  have  always  ad- 
duced her  quick  and  marvellous  acquirement  of  the  hearts 
of  men  as  a proof  of  her  divine  origin,  while  men  of  the 
school  of  Gibbon  and  Voltaire  have  endeavored  to  show  that 
there  is  nothing  in  her  development  which  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  by  purely  human  reasons.  The  object  of  this 
• chapter  is  to  show  that  the  history  of  the  early  propagation 
of  our  religion  is  such  as  to  demand,  from  a candid  reader, 
an  acknowledgment  of  a divine  guidance,  as  the  only  possi- 
ble reason  for  that  propagation.  We  shall  merely  condense 
the  argil  men ts  of  the  learned  Valsecchi  (1). 

When  Augustus  wielded  the  sceptre  of  the  Roman  empire, 
ihe  whole  world,  with  the  exception  of  Palestine,  was  gen- 
tile ; when  Nero  mounted  the  throne,  an  immense  multitude 
of  Christians,  according  to  Tacitus  (2),  was  to  be  found, 
even  within  the  walls  of  the  capital.  Under  Domitian,  the 
new  faith  penetrated  into  the  Imperial  palace,  and  claimed 
its  converts  among  those  raised  in  the  purple.  Flavius 
Oleraent,  and  his  wife  Domitilla,  were  among  those  put  to 
death  by  this  emperor  on  account  of  Christianity.  While 
Trajan  ruled,  the  younger  Pliny  (3)  found  the  new  religion 

(1)  Sources  of  Religion  and  of  Impiety , b.  2,  c.  14.  (2)  Annals , />.  15,  r.  44. 

(3)  Book  10,  epist.  97  to  Trajan. 

59 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


60 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


“ in  the  cities,  in  the  villages,  throughout  the  country  places ; 
professed  by  persons  of  both  sexes,  of  every  order  and  every 
age,  even  to  the  point  of  death  ; so  that  the  temples  are  des- 
olate, and  the  sacrifices  for  a long  time  stopped/*  St.  Ig- 
natius suffered  under  Trajan,  and  he  wrote  to  the  Philadel- 
phians that  the  “ Church  founded  in  the  Blood  of  Christ  was 
spread  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other.”  In  the 
days  of  the  Antonines,  St.  Justin,  Martyr,  asserted  (1)  that 
“ there  is  not  one  nation  of  men,  be  it  Greek  or  barbarian, 
or  called  by  any  name  you  will,  whether  it  lives  in  the 
swamps  and  wants  a roof,  or  lives  in  tents  and  feeds  the 
flocks,  from  the  midst  of  which  do  not  ascend  prayers  and 
thanks  to  the  Father  and  Creator  of  the  universe,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Crucified/'  St.  Irenaeus  (d.  202)  shows  us 
the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  in  full  working  order  through- 
out the  empire.  Speaking  of  Borne  (2),  he  says  that  “To 
this  Church,  because  of  its  preeminent  principality,  all 
churches  must  have  recourse,  that  is,  the  faithful  wherever 
they  are,  because  in  it  is  ever  preserved  the  Apostolic  tra- 
dition/’ Tertullian  (d.  230)  says,  (3),  “ Only  yesterday  were 
we  born,  and  we  have  filled  all  your  places,  the  cities,  the 
islands,'  the  fortresses,  municipalities,  the  councils,  the 
camps,  the  palace,  the  senate,  the  forum  ; we  leave  you  only 
the  temples/’  In  the  book  which  the  learned  African  wrote 
to  the  prefect  Scapula,  he  draws  a terrible  picture  of  the 
wholesale  desolation  which  would  ensue  if  the  Christians 
of  Carthage  were  only  decimated.  And  disputing  with  the 
Jews,  he  asks  (4),  “ And  in  whom  besides  Christ,  who  has 

already  come,  have  all  the  gentiles  believed? there 

are  the  Getuli,  the  Moors,  the  Spaniards,  the  Gauls,  the  Bri- 
tons— not  yet  subdued  by  the  Romans,  but  conquered  by 
Christ. — Sarmatians,  the  Dacians,  the  Germans,  the  Scy- 
thians, and  many  other  races  and  countries  and  islands  un- 
known to  us,  and  which  cannot  be  enumerated,  in  all  of 

* 

which  places  reigns  the  name  of  Christ/’  Tertullian  was 
certainly  a Christian,  but  not  for  that  reason  is  his  testi- 
mony as  to  the  spread  of  his  religion  to  be  questioned.  He 

(1)  Dialogue  with  Trypho^  n.  117.  (2)  Boo/c  3.  c.  3. 

(3)  Apology , 87.  (4)  Against  thcJcvs , c.  7. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


/ 


RAPID  PROPAGATION  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  61 

would  not  have  dared,  especially  in  a polemical  work,  to 
risk  an  assertion  which,  if  false,  could  easily  be  refuted. 
And  we  possess  documents  of  certain  authenticity,  which 
go  to  prove  that  long  before  the  cessation  of  persecution, 
the  faith  was  propagated  throughout  the  empire.  The  im- 
mense number  of  martyrs  who  yielded  up  their  lives  for  ^ 
Christ,  and  whose  Ads , for  the  greater  part  authentic,  have 
reached  us,  furnish  an  indisputable  argument  fpr  -orr  posi- 
tion. The  Irish  critic,  Dodwell,  in  vain  tries  to  reduce  the 
number  of  martyrs  to  a trivialty ; let  the  student  consult 
Ruinart,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Acts  of  the  Martyrs , and  he  will 
find  that  our  writers  have  by  no  means  exaggerated  in  their 
accounts.  The  following  passage  of  Prudentius,  who  wrote 
in  the  fourth  century,  is  pertinent  to  the  question,  (1).  “ We 
have  seen  in  Rome  the  ashes  of  innumerable  saints.  Do 
you  ask  me  to  give  the  names  and  titles  of  each,  as  they  are 
cut  on  their  tombs  ? It  would  be  difficult  to  grant  your  re- 
quest, for  the  number  of  the  just  destroyed  by  impious  fury 
was  as  great  as  the  number  of  gods  worshipped  by  Trojan 
Rome.  Many  sepulchres  speak  in  minute  accents  of  the 
name,  some  others  bear  an  epigram  upon  the  martyr.  But 
there  are  many  silent  marbles,  containing  taciturn  cohorts 
of  victims,  which  record  only  the  number  within ; how 
many  bodies  there  are,  you  are  told,  but  the  names  you  do 
not  find.  From  under  one  only  slab,  I remember  were  taken 
the  remains  of  sixty  heroes,  whose  names  are  known  to 
Christ  alone,  as  of  those  now  united  to  Him  in  friendship/' 

If  such  was  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  capital,  what  must  it 
have  been  throughout  the  empire  ? 

And  what  result  was  obtained  by  the  three  hundred  years 
of  persecution  ? Simply  the  verification  of  Tertullian’s 
saying  (2)  that  the  “ blood  of  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the 
Church.” s When  the  advent  of  Constantine  gave  peace  to  the 
fold,  and  the  fathers  met  in  general  Council  for  the  first  ( 
time  since  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  it  was  found  that  they 
numbered  318,  and  most  of  them  were  from  the  East ; and 
this,  in  spite  of  the  slaughters  of  Diocletian  and  Maximian, 
only  twelve  years  previous.  In  Rome,  the  cross  was  now 

<1/  ‘h  thr  Ctini'iin.  Humn  XI.  xk)  Ap*Haoy%  last  chap. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


62 


STUDIES  IN  CHUKCH  HlSTOitY. 


publicly  reverenced  ; it  shone  upon  the  flags  of  the  army, 
and  upon  the  crown  of  the  sovereign.  And  to  what  was  due 
the  wonderful  vitality  and  progress  of  the  Church  which 
then  astonished  the  world  ? We  shall  prove  that  such 
progress  was  impossible  to  human  means,  tnat  to  Gou  alone 
it  must  be  attributed.  Firstly,  what  was  the  character  of 
the  age  during  which  this  progress  was  attained  ? 

From  the  time  of  Augustus,  when  Christianity  first  ap- 
peared, Rome  was  the  mistress  of  the  world.  Her  viciories 
in  the  East  had  brought  to  her  immense  wealth  and  this 
wealth  entailed  a luxury,  a refinement  of  vice,  which  made 
Juvenal  sigh  for  the  days  of  Roman  poverty  (1;.  It  is  difli 
cult  for  us  to  believe  all  that  incontestable  evidence  reveals 
ot  the  corruption  of  all  classes  under  the  Pagan  Caesars. 
An  avaricious  and  cruel  aristocracy,  a brutal  and  glutton- 
ous people ; men  without  honor,  and  women  who  had  not 
even  the  knowledge  of  what  modesty  should  bn.  If  scarce- 
ly one  of  the  many  Roman  empresses  was  an  ordinarily  de- 
cent woman,  it  would  be  hard  to  draw  an  exaggerated  pict- 
ure of  general  society*  The  philosophy  which  Rome  re- 
ceived from  Greece  helped  on  the  infection.  Whether 
Stoic,  and  puffed  up  with  arrogance,  or  Epicurean,  and 
given  to  voluptuousness,  the  average  Roman  was  «:  thorough 
philosophaster.  Rome  was  filled  with  the  dilettanti  of  let- 
ters ; her  schools,  rostrums,  and  palaces,  resounded  with 
the  grandiloquent  precepts  of  teachers  who  only  added  to 
the  general  corruption.  Adrian  philosophized  to-day,  to- 
morrow he  will  weep  for  Antinous  like  a school-girl.  In 
matter  of  religion,  the  Rome  of  the  Caesars  was  super- 
stitious, but  religion  was  respected.  Everything  was  ac- 
ceptable to  the  religion  of  the  empire  ; Christ  would  have 
been  enrolled  among  the  divinities  had  the  Christians  con- 
sented. Religion  was  a vast  machine.  At  its  head  was  the 
sovereign  as  Supreme  Pontiff : the  temples  find  their  furni- 
ture were  magnificent  in  the  extreme.  Foolish  and  impious 
as  it  was,  the  Roman  religious  system  powerfully  influenced 
all  classes ; both  public  and  private  life  were  permeated  by 
it,  either  from  policy  or  superstition.  Such  was  the  Rome 

( 1)  6th  Satire,  v.  292. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


RAPIt>  PROPAGATION  CHRISTIANITY. 


63 


cf  Augustus  and  his  sucessors  ; cultivated  to  excess,  in  mat- 
ter of  art  and  science,  but  immersed  in  luxury  and  parade ; 
dominated  by  a religion  which  attracted  men  because  it 
favored  every  depraved  appetite,  and  checked  no  raging 
passion.  Now,  looking  at  the  matter  from  a human  point, 
of  view,  was  it  likely  that  Success  would  crown  the  effort  of 
a system  like  Christianity  to  obtain  the  mastery  in  such  a 
society  ? When  Sts.  Peter  and  Paul  entered  the  Eternal 
City  they  declared  implacable  war  upon  all  the  deities  un- 
der whose  care  the  little  hamlet  of  Romulus  had  become 
the  mistress  of  the  nations.  Capitoline  Jove,  before  whom 
the  conquerors  of  the  earth  bent  the  knee  after  a triumph, 
was  spoken  of  by  these  despised  Jews  as  a nobody.  All 
the  other  deities  were  also  nobodies,  or  perhaps  demons. 
The  temples  were  sublime  follies  ; the  priests,  vile  impos- 
tors ; the  Supreme  Pontiff,  at  best  a stage  manager.  From 
Caesar  on  his  throne,  down  to  the  veriest  slave,  how  would 
the  Romans  naturally  receive  such  teachings,  and  from 
such  men  ? And  if  the  proud  Quirites  consented  to  put  out 
their  sacred  fires,  what  kind  of  a worship  did  these  Jews 
propose  to  substitute  for  that  of  majestic  Jupiter  and  lovely 
Venus?  A few  years  before  there  had  lived  in  pitiful 
Judea  a man  called  Jesus,  a man  of  no  wealth  or  of  what 
the  Roman  would  call  “ standing  ; ” this  obscure  Jew  had 
styled  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and,  at  the  request  of  his 
countrymen,  had  been  crucified  by  the  Roman  governor, 
and  between  two  thieves.  What  a god  to  propose  to  the 
philosophy  of  Rome  ! And  what  was  the  system  of  morality 
inculcated  by  these  foreign  adventurers?  A people  who 
made  a virtue  of  love  of  glory  were  to  embrace  instead  the 
practice  of  humility.  They  were  to  cherish  purity,  to  whom 
lechery  was  as  the  breath  of  their  nostrils,  and  whose  gods 
were  its  prime  promoters.  Forgiveness  of  injury  was  to  be 
the  ordinary  thing  among  those  who  regarded  revenge  as 
oftentimes  a sacred  duty.  And  so  on  through  the  whole 
catalogue  of  precepts.  As  Valsecehi  well  says,  “ It  was  as 
little  to  be  expected  that  such  a law'  would  be  received  in 
Rome  during  the  time  of  the  Caesars,  as  it  was  natural  t»> 
see  the  carnal  and  bloody  religion  of  the  impostor  Mohammed 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


64  STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8TCRV. 

accepted  by  the  Saracens  of  Asia  ....  This  latter  sja 
tem  was  in  unison  with  the  brutal  propensities  of  Chose 
peoples,  and  therefore  it  was  received ; the  former  was  en- 
tirely opposed  to  the  disposition  of  the  Romans,  therefore, 
humanly  speaking,  it  was  not  to  be  established.”  And  what 
consequences  accrued  to  the  profession  of  Christianity  in 
those  days  ? In  the  first  place,  the  convert  was  proclaimed 
by  all  as  impious,  as  an  enemy  of  Caesar  and  of  society,  as 
the  vilest  of  the  vile.  Listen  to  Tacitus : “ He  (Nero) 
punished,  in  a most  curious  manner,  those  hated  malefac- 
tors whom  the  vulgar  call  Christians repressed 

for  a while,  the  pestiferous  superstition  broke  out  again 

even  in  the  city,  where  everything  atrocious  and 

shameful  flows,  and  is  cultivated.  First  wore  taken  the 
professing  Christians,  then  a great  number  of  those  who 
were  named,  not  as  guilty  of  firing  the  city,  but  as  enemies 
of  the  human  race”  (1).  Suetonius  (2)  says,  “ Torments 
were  visited  upon  the  Christians,  a get  of  men  belonging  to 
a new  and  pernicious  superstition.”  Juvenal  thinks  he  is 
very  just  when  he  styles  the  Cr.iistians  cerdones , “vile 
mechanics.”  Cecilius  (3)  deemed  them  “ uncivilized,  and 
without  culture,  the  vilest  scum  of  the  earth.”  Lucian  re- 
garded them  as  “ idiots.”  A loug  string  of  like  compliments 
may  be  found  in  the  erudite  work  of  Mamachi  on  Christian 
Antiquities , vol.  1,  r.  2 and  3,  but  these  will  suffice  to  show 
what  the  refined  gentleman  and  delicate  lady  convert  had 
to  anticipate  in  those  days  from  their  former  associates. 
Tertullian  tells  us  (4)  that  in  consequence  of  Pagan  calum- 
nies, “Every  public  calamity  and  every  popular  trouble 
was  attributed  to  the  Christians.  If  the  Tiber  rises  above 
its  banks,  if  the  Nile  does  not  overflow,  if  the  skies  are  not 
clear,  if  the  earth  quakes,  if  famine  or  pestilence  come,  up 
goes  the  cry,  ‘The  Christians  to  the  Lions.’  ” Now,  does 
the  reader  think  it  likely,  humanly  speaking,  that  people 
of  every  condition,  age,  and  sex,  in  so  brilliant  and  refined 
an  age,  would  have  rushed  to  join  a sect  so  vilified  and 
persecuted,  and  that  too  for  the  sake  of  a doctrine  contrary 

(1)  Annals , B.  13,  c.  44.  (2)  Nero , 16.  (8)  Minutjus  Felix,  Octav ..  c.  24. 

(4)  Apology , c.  40. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


RAPID  PROPAGATION  OP  CHRISTIANITY.  65  , 

to  their  secret  and  dearest  inclinations  ? And  remember, 
a few  may  be  guilty  of  gross  extravagance,  and  of  transcen- 
dent fanaticism,  but  here  it  is  a question  of  millions  of  all 
classes,  nobles  and  commoners,  rough  soldiers  and  delicate 
women,  the  philosophers  and  the  ignorant  octogenarians 
and  tender  children. 

Had  the  tirst  apostles  of  Christianity  been  helped  by  mil- 
itary force,  or  by  the  allurements  of  an  easy  and  self-petting 
religion,  or  even  by  an  extraordinary  eloquence  of  their  own, 
they  might  possibly  have  been  expected,  humanly  speaking, 
to  succeed.  But  God  wished  to  take  from  them  even  these 
human  aids.  Origen  makes  a remark  very  apposite  to  this 
point  (1).  “It  seems  to  me  that  if  Jesus  had  chosen  for  the 
work  of  teaching,  those  who,  in  the  opinion  pf  the  vulgar, 
were  wise,  and  fit  by  knowledge  and  speech  to  captivate  the 
good  graces  of  the  multitude,  He  would  not  have  escaped 
the  supicion  of  instituting  a new  school,  like  the  philoso- 
phers, for  his  own  reputation.”  The  twelve  apostles  chosen 
by  Christ  were  men  possessed  of  not  even  the  first  rudi- 
ments of  education  ; this  fact  was  so  well  known  to  the  Pa- 
gans that  Origen  says  that  Celsus  conceded  it  without  hesi- 
tation (2).  They  were  Jews,  and  therefore  hated  ; fisher- 
men, and  therefore  poor  ; foreign  plebeians,  and  therefore 
lacking  in  Latin  and  Greek  culture.  Yet  they  go  into  the 
most  cultivated,  as  well  as  into  the  most  barbarous  places 
of  the  earth,  and  without  art  or  metaphor  preach  a new 
and  difficult  doctrine,  which  is  accepted  by  millions.  They 
teach  what  the  world’s  philosopy  must  regard  as  folly,  but 
their  folly  conquers  philosophy.  The  first  argument  of 
their  every  discourse  is  the  cross, — the  scandal  of  the  He- 
brews and  the  foolishness  of  the  Gentiles.  They  faM,  in- 
deed, but  their  doctrine  triumphs. 

The  rapid  propagation  of  Christianity  is  an  historical 
fact  which  no  one  denies.  The  resistance  of  the  I'agan 
world  was  the  greatest  possible,  on  account  of  the  natural 
opposition  between  its  genius  and  that  of  the  new  system ; 
it  was  exercised  too  in  the  most  ferociously  determined 
manner,  as  we  know  from  the  consequences  entailed  by  con- 

( 1 ) A gaintt  Cchnu,  b.  1 . (2)  Ibid. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


66 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


version  to  Christianity.  Now,  the  force  opposed  by  the 
Church  to  this  Pagan  resistance  was,  humanly  speaking, 
the  smallest  possible,  for  her  doctrines  were  not  alluring  to 
human  nature,  and  her  apostles  were  absolutely  deficient  in 
all  human  aids  to  success.  Therefore,  to  conclude  with 
Vajsecchi,  whose  argument  we  have  appropriated,  since  it 
is  an  axiom  that  the  effect  must  be  zero  where  the  force  is 
at  the  minimum,  and  the  resistance  at  the  maximum,  we 
must  admit  that  according  to  all  human  ideas  the  Christian 
religion  should  have  been,  from  the  outset,  a failure.  But 
it  was  nevertheless  successfully  propagated,  therefore  it 
was  the  wrork  of  God.  We  may  well  use  the  words  of 
Richard  of  St.  Victor : “ If,  0 Lord,  my  faith  were  an  er- 
ror— which  is  an  impossibility — Thou  art  the  deceiver,  for 
Thou  hast  permitted  that  Christianity  should  be  marked  by 
signs  which  plainly  show  the  imprint  of  Thy  omnipotent 
hand.”  (1) 

(1)  8t.  Augustine,  In  his  Citjf  of  God,  b.  22,  c„  5,  makes  these  apposite  remarks : “ Here  w© 
noth*  three  Incredible  things.  It  Is  Incredible  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead : that  the 
world  should  have  believed  in  His  resurrection  : that  a small  number  of  men,  and  men,  too. 
from  the  dregs  of  the  people,  should  have  persuaded,  even  wise  persons,  of  the  fact  Of 
these  three  incredible  things,  our  adversaries  refuse  to  believe  the  first.  They  see  the  second 
with  llieir  own  eyes,  and  they  can  only  account  for  It  by  admitting  the  third.  The  n*sur- 
■ection  of  Christ  is  published  and  believed  in  the  entire  world.  If  it  is  im  redible,  why  does 
the  universe  credit  it?  Had  a large  number  of  learned  and  distinguished  men  testified  to 
this  miracle,  asserting  that  they  had  lieheld  It,  It  would  not  have  been  wonderful,  had  the 
world  believed  In  It;  but  when  we  know  that  the  world  has  credit«*d  It,  on  tin  testimony  of 
a few  obscure  and  ignorant  persons,  how  is  it  that  there  me  yet  found  men  so  ol-stinnte  as 

to  discredit  that  which  has  been  received  by  an  entire  world  ? If  people  w ill  not 

believe  that  the  Apostles  performed  miracles  in  testimony  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  they 
ask  us  to  believe  in  a greater  miracle,  namely,  that  the  whole  world  did  Itelleve  wtihout  a 
miracle.” 


Cantd  says  that  while  we  cannot  accept  as  absolutely  true  the  remark  of  Justin  Martyr 
(Dial.  Tryi>ho , n.  117)  as  to  the  universal  spread  of  Christianity  in  his  day,  yei  : **  It  is  cer- 
tain that  Christianity  spread  with  a rapidity,  which,  considering  the  obstacles  that  it  encount- 
ered, proves  Its  divinity.  Besides  Judea,  Italy,  Gretsv,  and  Kg.’.  ;>t,  the  provinces  between  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Ionian  were  cultivated  by  Paul:  u\  • ..  o cai/f/jw  speaks  of  the  seven 
Asiatic  churches  of  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Pergamus,  Th;  hi, fa,  Hindis,  Laodicea,  and  Philadel- 
phia ; in  Syria,  the  churches  of  Damascus,  Berea  >A;*p;  •.  , and  Antioch,  were  iilietrious  ; 
Cyprus,  Crete,  Thrace,  and  Macedonia  received  the  lies  who  spread  the  truth  in  thean- 
cient  republics  of  Corinth,  Sparta,  and  Athens.  From  Edessa,  where  many  embraeod  it, 
Christianity  was  propagated  in  the  Greek  and  Syriac  cities  which  obeyed  the  successors  of 
Artaxerses,  In  spite  of  the  solid  hierarchy,  and  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Persian  system. 
The  Great  Armenia  received  it  very'  early  from  the  neight>oring  Syria,  although  ihe  king- 
dom was  not  entirely  converted  until  the  fourth  century The  Synagogue,  the  em- 

perors, the  proconsuls,  persecute  them  ? If  weak,  they  fly  ; if  not,  they  sillier,  but  They  do 

not  yield It  is  true  that  the  Romans  were  used  to  daily  executions,  to  gladiatorial  combats, 

to  Slolcal  suicides ; but  the  victims  of  all  these  either  were  forced  to  die,  or  they  threw  down 
Ilf©  as  am  insupportable  burden—  at  least  they  died  with  indifference,  being  satiuted  with 
life.  Among  the  Christians,  on  the  contrary,  death  was  met  by  women,  children,  and  old 
men,  not  with  the  haughty  dlgulty  of  the  schools,  hut  with  simplicity,  and  without  ostenta- 
Uon.”—  Univ.  Hist.,  b 6,c.in, 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


) 


A 


CHAPTER  Y. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY. 

Some  of  the  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us  as  of 
the  first  century  (1)  are  clearly  of  a later  date ; others  again 
have  been  proved  to  be  forgeries ; some,  however,  are  un- 
doubtedly authentic.  We  shall  briefly  treat  of  those  which 
are  the  most  frequently  quoted  or  consulted,  either  by 
Catholic  authors  or  their  opponents,  as  fountains  of  history. 
First  in  order  of  importance,  if  it  were  authentic,  comes 
the  letter  said  to  have  been  written  by  our  Lord  to  Abgar, 
king  of  Edessa,  in  Mesopotamia.  Eusebius  (2)  tells  us  that . 
this  prince  addressed  an  epistle  to  Christ,  begging  him  to 
come  to  him  and  cure  him  of  a malady  ; that  the  Saviour  re- 
plied, promising  to  send  one  of  his  disciples ; that,  after  the 
Ascension,  St.  Thomas  sent  St.  Thaddeus,  who  performed 
the  cure  and  converted  the  people  of  Edessa.  The  his- 
torian gives  the  whole  letter  of  Christ,  and  says  that  he 
found  it  in  the  ancient  annals  of  Edessa.  St.  Ephrem,  who 
was  a deacon  of  Edessa,  also  speaks  of  the  epistle.  Count 
Darius,  writing  to  St.  Augustine;  Evagrius  (3),  St.  John 
Damascene  (4),  and  the  7th  General  Council  (5),  are  cited 
by  the  friends  of  the  epistle,  as  mentioning  it  and  regarding 
it  as  authentic. 

Tillemont,  the  Anglican  Cave,  and  a few  other  critics,  ac- 
cept it.  But,  as  Bergier  well  remarks  (6),  the  authenticity 
of  this  letter  need  not  give  much  concern  to  a theologian, 

(1)  Besides  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the  following : A letter  of  Christ  to 
Abgar,  king  of  Edessa,  and  one  of  that  prince  to  our  Lord  ; Liturgies  nscrit>ed  to  Sts.  Peter, 
James,  Matthew,  and  Mark ; Acts  of  Sts.  Paul  and  Tbecla ; The  Apocryphal  Gospels  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians,  Hebrews.  Sts.  Peter,  James,  Thomas,  and  Matthias  ; Acts  of  Sts.  Peter 
and  Paul,  Andrew,  John,  Philip,  and  Thomas ; Revelations  of  Sts.  Paul  and  Thomas ; Apoc- 
alypse of  St.  Peter ; Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Seneca ; and  of  Seneca  to  St.  Paul ; Epistle  of  St. 
Paul  to  the  Laodiceans:  Writings  of  Prochorus  (one  of  the  seven  deacons),  Linus,  and  Ab- 
dias;  Epistle  of  St.  Barnabas  ; Book  of  the  Pastor ; Passion  of  St.  Andrew  by  the  Clergy  of 
Achala ; Epistles  of  St.  Martial:  Epistles  of  Pope  St.  Clement,  and  of  other  Pontiffs : Book  of 
Recognitions,  ascribed  to  St.  Clement;  Epistle  of  St.  Polvcarp : Encyclical  Epistle  of  the 
Church  of  Smyrna ; Writings  of  St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  : Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  Mar- 
tyr ; Canons  of  the  Apostles ; Apostolic  Constitutions : Canons  of  the  Apostolic  Council  of 
Antioch. 

(2)  Book  1,  c.  13.  (3)  Book  4,  c.  26.  (4)  Orthodox  Faith,  b.  4,  c.  17. 

. (5)  Action  5.  (6)  Art.  Ahyar 

67 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


'68 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


4<  for  upon  it  depends  no  fact,  no  dogma,  no  point  of  moral- 
ity.” Pope  Gelasius,  in  a Synod  of  70  Bishops,  held  at 
Rome  in  494,  pronounced  the  correspondence  apocryphal, 
and  certainly  if  the  letter  of  Christ  is  authentic,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  understand  why  it  has  not  been  included  in  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  Alexandre  uses  this  argument,  and 
adds,  among  others,  the  following.  None  of  the  Gospels  were 
written  during  the  sojourn  of  Christ  upon  earth,  and  yet,  in 
His  alleged  letter  to  Abgar.  He  is  represented  as  quoting 
the  Gospel.  Again,  Abgar  writes  to  our  Lord  that  llis 
iame  has  reached  Edessa  ' now,  the  letter  bears  date  of  the 
430th  year  of  the  Edessenes.  which  was  the  15tli  of  Tiberius, 
the  year  in  which  St.  John  commenced  his  mission,  and  at 
that  period  fame  had  not  yet  become  occupied  with  the 
name  of  Jesus,  Finally,  if  the  early  fathers  had  regarded 
this  correspondence  as  authentic,  they  would  not  have 
omitted,  as  they  did,  to  adduce  it  against  the  Arians ; for 
in  it  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  explicitly  asserted.  As  for 
the  testimony  of  Sts.  Eplirem  and  John  Damascene,  of 
Evagrius,  and  of  the  7th  Council,  wre  can  only  say  that  these 
fathers  were  mistaken  in  their  judgment.  St.  Jerome,  in 
his  Catalogue  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  makes  no  allusion 
whatever  to  the  Abgar  correspondence.  And  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  Count  Darius,  waiting  to  St.  Augustine,  speaks 
•of  these  letters  as  of  dubious  authenticity  ; that  St.  John 
Damascene  does  not  allude  to  any  letter  of  Christ  to  Abgar, 
but  to  a portrait  of  our  Lord  sent  to  the  prince  (1) ; that 
the  same  is  to  be  observed  as  to  the  testimony  of  the  7th 
Council. 

The  Canons  of  the.  Apostles  purport  to  be  disciplinary  regu- 
lations of  the  primitive  Church,  and  are  85  in  number. 
Torriani,  in  a book  written  against  the  Centuriators  cf 
Magdeburg,  ascribes  them  all  to  the  Apostles.  Bellarmine, 
Baronio,  and  Possevin,  hold  that  the  first  50  are  authentic, 
Bini  accepts  all  but  the  65th  and  84th.  Daille  (2),  and 

(!)  “ History  tells  us  that  when  Abgar,  king  of  Edeesa,  sent  a painter  to  t&ke  a portrait  of 
our  Lord,  the  artist  could  not  fulfil  the  task  on  account  of  the  effulgence  of  His  face;  that 
our  Lord  Himself  then  pressed  his  garment  to  His  divine  and  life-giving  countenance, 
thereby  affixing  His  likeness  upon  it,  which  He  sent  to  Abgar.” 

(2)  Apostolic  Pseudopiyraphs,  b.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  69 


many  other  Protestant  authors,  contend  that  all  these  Can- 
ons are  supposititious,  and  that  they  were  not  known  be- 
fore the  fourth,  and  perhaps  the  fifth,  century.  Protestant 
writers  would  naturally  be  hostile  to  them,  for  they  are 
manifestly  opposed  to  many  Protestant  doctrines,  rln  them 
we  discover  that  the  early  Church  believed  in  preeminence 
of  bishops  ; we  read  of  “ altars  ” and  of  “ sacrifice  ” ; we  ob- 
serve that  regulations  were  made  for  the  administration  of 
the  Eucharist,  for  Penance.  &c 

The  Anglican  Beveridge  (1),  holds,  however,  that  these 
Canons  were  established  by  bishops  and  synods  in  the  2nd 
and  3rd  centuries.  Alexandre  (2)  contends  that  the  eastern 
churches  accepted  them  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury ; that  the  western  churches  received  the  first  50  at 
the  same  period  ; that  the  entire  collection  is  supposititious  ; 
that,  nevertheless,  they  are  very  ancient,  and  were  in  great 
part  drawn  up  in  258,  by  the  Synod  of  Iconium,  over  which 
Firmilian  presided.  Those  who  hold  that  the  Apostles  and 
the  Apostolic  fathers  had  no  part  in  the  framing  of  these 
Canons,  rely  upon  the  following  arguments.  Pope  Gelas- 
ius  I.  declared  them  apocryphal.  Cardinal  Hubert,  legate 
of  Pope  Leo  IX.  to  Constantinople,  rejected  them  when 
Nicetas  cited  them  in  support  of  his  opposition  to  the 
Saturday  fast.  “ We  disdain/’  says  Hubert,  “ to  listen  to 
these  fabulous  traditions.”  Had  the  early  Church  regard- 
ed these  Canons  as  authentic,  contends  Alexandre,  they 
would  have  been  inserted  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  The 
Ecclesiastical  authors  of  the  first  four  centuries  are  silent  as 
to  these  documents,  even  in  circumstances  in  which  their 
existence  would  have  been  very  beneficial  to  the  cause  of 
truth.  Words  occur  in  these  Canons  which  are  utterly  for- 
eign to  the  style  of  the  Apostles,  e.  g.,  Cleric,  Lector,  Chan- 
ter, Priest  ( Sacerdos ),  Laic,  First  among  Bishops  (foi  a Met- 
ropolitan), the  Hyperberetaean  Month  (for  October)  (3). 
In  Canons  46,  47,  and  67.  we  find  a denial  of  the  validity  of 
Baptism  conferred  by  heretics.  Canon  7 prohibits  the  cel- 
ebration of  a Pasch  “ with  the  Jew's.”  and  yet  the  conduct 

\1)  Canons  of  the  Early  Church.  (2)  Hixtnry ; Cent.  Diss.  18,  prop.  1,  2,  and  3. 

(3)  This  was  the  Syro-Macedonic  word  for  October. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


70 


STUDIES  IN  OHUROH  HISTORY. 


of  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor  in  the  Paschal  Controversy  im- 
plies utter  ignorance  of  this  ordinance.  And  why  did  not 
Pope  Victor  cite  this  canon,  when  these  prelates  defended 
their  course  as  upheld  by  Apostolic  tradition?  Canon  65 
deposes  any  cleric,  and  excommunicates  any  layman,  who 
fasts  on  Saturday ; yet  it  is  certain  that  in  the  very  city  of 
Rome,  at  least  in  the  fourth  century,  Saturday  was  a fast- 
day  (1),  and  that  St  Augustine  doubted  whether  or  not  it 
was  so  observed  by  the  Apostles.  In  Canon  84,  the  Books 
of  Scripture  are  mentioned,  and  among  them,  we  find  three 
Books  of  Maccliabees,  two  Epistles  of  Clement,  and  eight 
Books  of  Constitutions  ; there  are  wanting  in  the  list,  Wis- 
dom, Tobias,  Judith,  Ecclesiastes,  Esdras,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse. In  Canons  21,  2’2,  and  23,  no  one  is  allowed  admis- 
sion to  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  who  has  been  guilty  of  self- 
mutilation  ; a cleric  who  is  thus  guilty,  after  admission,  is 
deposed ; a layman  is  excluded  from  communion  for  three 
years.  It  is  very  unlikely  that  this  crime  was  committed 
in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  ; we  certainly  know  of  no  in- 
stance. And  in  after  years,  when  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  a 
few  impelled  them  to  it,  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
forbade  it,  we  find  no  citation  of  an  Apostolic  c anon  in  de- 
fence of  the  prohibition  (2).  To  these  arguments  against 
the  authenticity  of  the  Apostolic  Canons,  Torriani,  Bellar- 
mine,  and  Baronio,  respond  in  some  instances,  with  consid- 
erable plausibility  (3).  It  is  very  improbable,  says  Ber- 
gier  (4),  that  Sts.  Peter,  John,  James,  and  Mark  made  no 
regulations  for  the  government  of  their  respective  dioceses 
of  Rome,  Ephesus,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexandria.  And  in 
these  cities,  synods  were  held  during  the  second  and  third 
centuries  ; the  attending  prelates  would  naturally  follow  the 
Apostolic  regulations,  and  having  embodied  them,  they 
soon  styled  them  Apostolic  Canons.  They  are  apocryphal, 
inasmuch  as  they  were  drawn  up,  neither  by  the  Apostles, 
nor  by  St.  Clement,  whose  name  th^y  bear.  But  they  are 

(1)  Sr.  ArorrsTiNK . Epi*t.  36  to  Cambmus.  Cassian  : Monasteries,  b.  3,  c.  10. 
80CRATES  . b.  5,  c.  2. 

(2)  The  Instance  of  Orijren,  thanks  to  Demetrius,  was  made  notorious,  but  he  was  not  de- 
posed. Theoetlstus,  Alexander,  “ and  the  bishops  of  the  whole  world,  ” who.  according  to 
Eusebius,  knew  of  Oriprcu's  fault,  would  oertainly  have  obeyed  an  Apostolic  canon. 

(3)  See  Alexander  . loc.  c it. 

(4)  Art.  Canons. 


Digitized  by  v^oooLe 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  71 


authoritative,  inasmuch  as  they  present  us  the  discipline, 
which,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  was  believed  to 
have  been  established  by  the  Apostles. 

The  ApostoHc  Constitutions  are  a collection  of  regulations 
bearing  the  name  of  Pope  St.  Clement.  Nearly  all  critics 
agree  that  they  are  supposititious,  that  they  were  unknown 
before  the  fourth  or  fifth  century.  Bellarmine  says  (1) 
that  “In  them  there  are  many  useful  things,  and  by  the 
olden  Greeks  they  were  highly  esteemed.  But  in  the 
Latin  Church  they  are  almost  of  no  account,  and  even  the 
later  Greeks,  in  the  Trullan  synod,  can.  2,  rejected  them  as 
corrupted  by  heretics I understand  that  the  Ethio- 

pians use  these  Constitutions  as  though  they  were  really 
Apostolic,  and  that,  for  that  very  reason,  they  err  in  their 
observance  of  Saturday  and  Sunday,  in  regard  to  the  min- 
ister of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  and  in  certain  other  doc- 
trines   In  these  same  Constitutions  there  are  not  a few 

things  contrary  to  truth.”  The  erudite  Christian  Lupus  (2) 
reminds  us  that  “ the  Catalogue  of  St.  Jerome  makes  no 
mention  of  them,  and  St.  Gelasius,  in  his  Roman  synod, 
rejects  them  as  apocryphal ; the  whole  Latin  Church  has 
always  held  the  same  opinion.  In  our  own  times.  Cardi- 
nals Baronio,  Bellarmine,  Perron  ; Gabriel  d’ Aubespine 
(Albaspinaeus),  the  learned  bishop  of  Orleans,  believe  the 
same.  C .arles  Boviu^,  therefore,  and  Francis  Torriani 
might  have  used  their  time  to  better  advantage  than  in  an 
attempt  to  vindicate  them  Thomas  Stapleton  wrongly 
declares  them  to  be  full  of  the  Apostolic  spirit,  and  worthy 

of  a place  in  the  Scriptural  Canon The  book  was 

issued  by  some  unknown  Arian  of  the  4th  century,  and  it 
errs  in  dogma  and  in  liiurgy.”  However,  in  spite  of  the 
Arianism,  anachronisms,  and  other  faults  of  these  Consti- 
tutions they  are  valuable  as  sources  of  information  on  many 
disciplinary  and  liturgical  points.  Such  is  the  judgment 
of  Grabe  Beveridge,  and  other  Protestant  authors.  Mos- 
heim  holds,  in  one  place,  that  they  are  the  works  of  the  3d 
century  ; in  another,  he  assigns  their  origin  to  the  second. 

(1)  Ecclesiastical  Writers , art.  Clement. 

(2)  Notes  to  the  2nd  Canon  of  the  Trullan  Synod. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


72 


8TUDIE8  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Whiston  (1)  employs  much  erudition  in  trying  to  prove 
them  the  work  of  St  Clement,  at  the  dictation  of  the 
Apostles.  Alexandre  (2)  contends  that  they  are  apocry- 
phal, and  at  variance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Church. 
Bergier  believes  that  the  first  books  were  compiled  some 
centuries  before  the  8th.  Roncaglia  thinks  that  at  the  time 
of  St  Epiphanius,  who  praises  the  Constitutions , they  were 
incorrupted,  but  that,  soon  afterwards,  they  were  vitiated 

(3;. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Clement  (4)  come  next  in  order  of  im- 
portance. Some  of  these  are  unanimously  rejected  by  all 
critics,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  but  the  two  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians  are  undoubtedly  authentic.  The  first  has 
come  down  to  us  entire,  while  we  have  only  a fragment  of 
the  second.  With  regard  to  the  first,  St.  Dionysius  of 
Corinth,  only  seventy  years  after  it  wTas  wrritten,  tells  the 
Romans  that,  from  time  immemorial,  it  was  customary  to 
read  it  in  his  church  (5),  Sts.  Irenaeus  (6),  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (7),  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (8),  Ephanius  (9),  and 
Jerome  (10),  cite  it  and  praise  it.  Origen  (11)  also  speaks  of 
it.  Eusebius  (12)  says  that  it  is  approved  by  the  judgment 
of  all.  The  learned  Presbyterian,  Nathaniel  Lardner  (13), 
thinks  it  was  written  about  the  year  96,  immediately  after 
the  persecution  of  Domitian.  Alexandre  assigns  the  same 
date,  noting  that  the  author,  in  chapters  1,  5,  and  6,  alludes 
to  a persecution  other  than  that  of  Nero,  wdiich  must  have 
been  that  of  Domitian.  It  has  been  asserted  that  Eusebius  in 
his  Booh  3,  c.  36,  St.  Jerome,  and  Photius,  absolutely  reject- 
ed the  2nd  Epistle  ; that  the  first  betrays  an  ignorance  un- 
worthy of  St.  Clement  Eusebius  does  not  reject  the  2nd  Epis- 
tle ; he  simply  says  that  it  is  “less  known”  than  the  first. 


(1)  This  author,  now  best  known  by  his  translation  of  Josephus,  was  the  successor  of 
Newtou  at  Cambrldjre.  Becoming  an  Arian  in  1710,  he  was  deprived  of 


finally  Joined  the  Baptists. 

. ..  . . ...  m%iXm 


bis  chair,  and 


(2)  Cent.  /.,  Hiss. 

(3)  There  are  several  instances  of  inconsistency  in  the  Constitution* , which  would  Indi- 
cate the  presence  of  a urniiierinfr  hand.  Thus,  they  sometimes  permit  the  observance  of 
the  Pasch  with  the  Jews,  and  sometimes  prohibit  it. 

(4)  The  Epistles  of  the  other  Pontiffs,  down  to  Siricius,  will  receive  attention  In  the  chap- 
Ur  devoted  to  the  Fain e Decretals  of  Isidore  Me  rent  or. 

(5)  EusKBirs ; b.  4,  r.  14.  (10)  ecclesiastical  HYffers,  art.  Clement. 

(6)  Heresies,  h.  3,  c.  3,  (11)  Princip .,  b.  2 , c.  3. 

(7)  Stromaton,  h.  i,  4,  6.  (12)  7?.  3,  c.  12. 

(8)  Catechism,  lrt.  (13)  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  Histoi'y , r.  8. 

(9)  Heresy , 27,  n.  6. 


Digitized  by  AjOOQie 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  75 


Photius,  in  his  Codex , 113,  and  St  Jerome,  in  his  Catalogue , 
both  seem  to  discredit  its  authenticity,  but  they  do  not  there 
give  their  own  opinion,  but  that  which  Eusebius  appears  to 
favor.  When,  indeed,  they  speak  for  themselves,  as  Photius 
does  in  Codex , 126,  and  St.  Jerome,  against  Jovin .,  b.  1,  c.  7, 
they  both  acknowledge  the  2nd  Epistle  as  genuine.  The 
charge  of  ignorance  is  hinted  by  Photius,  in  his  Codex , 126, 
saying,  “ Some  may  blame  him  because  he  admits  the  exist- 
ence of  other  worlds  beyond  the  ocean  ; because  he  adduces* 
the  story  of  the  phoenix  as  a certain  fact ; because  he  gives  to 
Jesus  Christ  merely  the  title  of  high-priest  and  ruler,  not 
using  the  more  eminent  titles  which  belong  to  His  divini- 
ty.” As  for  the  admission  of  “ other  worlds,”  this  is  only 
another  argument  against  those  who*  assert  that  the  Fathers- 
deny  the  existence  of  the  antipodes.  Origen  (1)  interprets 
St.  Clement  as  meaning  regions  beyond  the  ocean,  and  agrees 
with  him.  St.  Hilary  does  the  same  (2).  As  to  the  fable 
of  the  phoenix,  its  mention  by  the  author  of  the  Epistlea 
is  no  proof  that  he  regarded  it  as  a fact,  or  used  it  in  any 
other  sense  than  as  an  illustration  of  our  resurrection,  as 
did  Origen,  Tertullian,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Lactantius, 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  and  many  other  Fathers.  The 
insinuation  that  the  writer  did  not  believe  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ  is  shown  to  be  unfounded  by  the  commencement 
of  the  second  letter,  where  our  Saviour  is  called  God,  the 
Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

The  book  of  Recognitions , ascribed  to  St.  Clement,  is  cited 
by  Origen  (3)  and  by  se  veral  early  writers ; nevertheless, 
it  must  be  classed  among  the  apocryphal.  St.  Epiphanius 
(4)  is  of  opinion  that  St.  Clement  wrote  these  Recognition & 
and  other  works  ascribed  to  him,  but  that  they  were  cor- 
rupted by  the  Ebionites.  Rufinus,  in  his  book  on  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  works  of  Origen,  forms  the  same  judgment 
Eusebius,  and  Sts.  Jerome  and  Athanasius  also  reject  them. 
Two  entire  pages  of  the  Recognitions , observes  Alexandre,  are 
taken,  word  for  word,  from  the  book  on  Fatei  written  by 
Bardesanes  the  Syrian^  who  flourished  under  M«rcur  Anto- 


ny' Principal).  2,  c.  3. 
(2)  Pzftltn  II.,  iw  23. 


(8)  Tract  85,  on  Matthew. 
(4;  Heretics*  80. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


74 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ninus  (161-180),  certainly  sixty  years  after  the  death  of  St. 
Clement. 

The  Epistlp  of  St.  Polycarp  to  the  Philippinns  is  a valuable 
document.  Its  author  was  a disciple  of  St.  John  the  Evan- 
gelist, was  made  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  was  martyred 
about  the  year  169.  The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence 
and  that  of  Holy  Orders  are  plainly  presented,  and  hence 
Protestants  would  gladly  show  it  to  be  spurious.  But  even 
LeClerc(l)  entertains  no  doubt  as  to  its  authenticity. 
Haille,  in  his  anxiety  to  discredit  the  authority  of  the  let- 
ters of  St.  Ignatius,  which  Poly  carp  sustains,  alleges  some 
flimsy  arguments  against  it,  which  are  refuted  by  Pearson, 
in  his  Vindication  of  Ignatius,  chap.  5.  Mosheiin  (2)  thinks  it 
is  not  easy  to  decide  whether  or  not  the  Epistle  is  authentic. 
The  following  words  of  St.  Irenaeus  (3)  speak  well  for  its 
genuineness.  *‘And  Poly  carp,  not  only  instructed  by  the 
Apostles,  and  associated  with  many  of  those  who  saw  our 
Lord,  but  also  made  bishop  of  Smyrna  in  Asia,  by  the 

Apostles,  whom  we  ourselves  saw,  in  our  early  age 

There  exists  a most  perfect  Epistle  of  Polycarp,  written  to 
the  Philippians,  from  which  those  who  wish,  and  who  have 
regard  for  their  salvation,  may  learn  the  quality  of  his  faith 
and  the  preaching  of  truth.”  Eusebius  (4)  and  St.  Jerome  (5) 
also  praise  this  letter.  Some  have  impugned  its  authority, 
because  it  seems  to  be  guilty  of  inconsistency;  in  one  place, 
they  say  St.  Ignatius  is  mentioned  as  living,  while  again  he 
is  spoken  of  as  “ in  his  due  place,  with  God.”  But  the 
holy  martyr  is  not  spoken  of  as  still  living  ; at  least,  that 
is  not  necessarily  the  sense  of  the  passage.  St.  Polycarp 
requests  the  Philippians  “ to  inform  him  of  what  they  know 
for  certain  about  Ignatius,  and  those  who  are  with  him.” 
The  Acts  of  ihe  martyr  tell  us  that  he  passed  through 
Philippi  on  his  way  to  death  and  that  the  Philippians,  as  was 
customary  in  such  cases,  sent  messengers  to  honor  and  con- 
sole him  When  these  returned  to  their  companions,  they 
certainly  had  much  to  narrate,  and  St.  Polycarp  wished  to 
be  informed  of  everything.  The  knowledge  of  the  saint’s 

( 1 ) History,  y.  117.  (2)  Hist.,  Cent.  I.,  p.  2,  c.  2,  § 21.  (3)  Heresies,  b.  3,  c.  3, 

(4)  B.  3,  c.  30,  and  b.  4,  c.  18.  (5)  Eccles.  Writers , art.  Polycarp. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  75 


last  moments,  of  the  disposition  of  his  body,  etc.,  reached 
Macedonia  before  it  did  Smyrna;  it  was  natural  then  for 
St.  Polycarp  to  apply  to  the  Philippians  for  information. 
The  authority  of  Nicephorus  of  Constantinople  and  of 
Anastasius  the  Librarian  is  also  adduced  against  our  Epis- 
ih\  But  the  opinion  of  Anastasius,  who  flourished  in  the 
ninth  century,  is  not  of  first  importance,  when  contrary  to 
that  of  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Bede,  and  of  all  the 
Asiatic  churches,  who,  for  many  centuries,  solemnly  read 
this  Emstle  in  their  services.  As  for  Nicephorus,  his  judg- 
ment was  not  so  good  as  that  of  his  contemporary,  the 
learned  Photius.  who,  though  he  rejected  the  letter  of  St. 
Clement,  had  nothing  to  allege  against  that  of  St.  Poly  carp. 
Again,  the  Stichometria  of  Nicephorus,  cited  against  us,  does 
not  speak  of  the  Epistle , but  of  the  Didaschalia  of  St.  Poly- 
carp. Finally,  even  though  the  Epistle,  were  quoted  by  the 
author  of  the  Stichometria,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  there- 
from, for  the  writer  does  not  pronounce  the  document  spu- 
rious ; he  merely  says  that  it  is  to  be  placed  among  the 
apocrypha  of  the  Bible,  that  is,  to  be  excluded  from  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  which  is  very  different  from  banishing 
it  from  the  company  of  authentic  works  (1). 

The  Encyclical  Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  inserted  by 
Cotelier  among  the  Work*. } of  the  Apostolic  Fathers , was  writ- 
ten after  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Polycarp,  and  is  not  impugn- 
ed by  any  author  of  note.  It  is  valuable  for  the  testimony 
it  bears  to  the  veneration  of  martyrs  and  their  relics  on  the 
part  of  the  primitive  Church. 

St.  Dionysius  (Denis),  the  Areopagite,  is  believed  by 
many  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  following  works  : The 

Celestial  Hierarchy , The  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy , The  Divine 
Names , Mystic  Theology , and  ten  Epistles . The  state  of  the 
question  in  regard  to  these  books  is  well  explained  by  Alex- 
andre (2),  at  the  beginning  of  his  apposite  dissertation : 
“It  is  certain  that  no  one  has  spoken  of  these  works  as 

(1)  It  may  be  observed,  with  Alexandre,  that  the  cited  Stichnmetria  was  not  written  by 
the  patriarch  Nicephorus,  nor  by  any  author  of  the  9th  centuiw.  At  that  time,  the  Greek* 
did  not  doubt  of  the  canonidty  of  the  books  of  Esther,  Judith,  and  Wisdom,  as  does  the 
writer  of  this  book. 

(2)  Cent.  L,  Dies.  XXII. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


76 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


written,  either  by  Dionysius  or  by  any  other  Father,  before 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  Secondly,  it  is  certain 
that,  in  the  following  centuries,  the  Fathers,  the  Councils,  the 
Pontiffs,  and  all  the  Ecclesiastical  writers,  down  to  Eras- 
mus (one  alone,  an  anonymous,  excepted),  ascribed  them 
to  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.  Thirdly,  it  is  certain  that 
there  are  grave  reasons  for  denying  that  they  are  by  Dio- 
nysius the  Areopagite,  and  for  assigning  them  to  an  author 
of  the  fifth  century ; by  which  reasons  Launoy  and  Morin 
were  persuaded  to  adopt  that  opinion.  However,  though  it 
is  fortified  so  strongly,  I would  rather  defend  the  contrary 
opinion,  which  declares  St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  to  be 
the  legitimate  parent  of  these  books  ; it  has  so  many  ar- 
guments in  its  favor,  that  I deem  it  not  less  probable  than 
the  other,  and  would  prefer  to  defend  it,  with  the  (Ecumen- 
ical Councils  and  the  Holy  Fathers  on  my  side,  than  to 
embrace  the  other,  under  the  leadership  of  the  doubtful  Eras- 
mus, and  Daille,  Blondel,  and  other  heterodox  authors,  to- 
gether with  the  most  learned  Morin  and  Launoy.”  Nothing 
will  better  show  the  diversity  of  opinion  among  Catholic 
critics,  concerning  these  writings,  than  a comparison  of 
this  passage  of  the  great  historian  and  critic  with  one  of  Ber- 
gier  (1).  “It  is  certain  that  the  works,  which  bear  the  name 
of  St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  are  not  those  of  the  holy 
bishop  of  Athens,  but  the  real  author  is  unknown.  Critics 

differ  as  to  the  period  when  they  first  appeared The 

first  authentic  mention  of  them  is  at  the  conference  held  in 
532,  in  the  palace  of  the  emperor  Justinian,  between  the 
Catholics  and  the  Severians  ; the  latter  quoted  them  in 
their  own  favor,  the  former  upheld  their  orthodoxy,  and 
from  that  time  many  Fathers  of  the  Church  have  sustained 
their  authoritativeness.  Mosheim  and  Brucher  deem  the 
Mystic  Theology  the  work  of  a fanatical  Platonist,  who,  in 
place  of  the  reasonable  religion  of  the  Gospel,  substitutes 
a chimerical  devotion,  consisting  of  prayers,  vigils,  and 
macerations  of  the  body  ; making  lazy  contemplation  the 
perfection  of  Christianity — an  absurd  doctrine,  which  has 

(1)  Art.  Dionysius. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  XXF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  .77 


produced  great  abuses  in  the  Church”(l).  The  book 
on  the  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy  is  also  displeasing  to 
Protestants,  for  it  bears  witness  to  the  ancient  use 
of  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  to  the  “ Discipline  of  the 
Secret”  So  grave  are  the  authorities  adduced  by  both 
parties  to  this  controversy,  and  so  weighty  are  some  of  the 
arguments  used  by  each,  that  we  can  do  no  better  than  sum- 
marize their  respective  reasons,  leaving  the  student  to  his 
own  good  judgment  thereon.  In  the  first  place,  thirteen 
centuries  of  possession,  during  which  time  these  books  have 
been  ascribed  to  the  Areopagite,  by  Fathers,  by  Pontiffs, 
and  by  Councils,  no  other  author  being  put  forward  as 
claimant,  militate  for  their  authenticity.  They  are  cited 
as  works  of  our  Dionysius  by  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  (2),  who 
lived  in  the  fifth  century  ; by  Leontius  (3),  when  combating 
the  Aphtardocetes,  or  asserters  of  the  incorruptibility  of  the 
flesh  of  Christ ; by  the  Monothelites,  with  no  contradiction 
on  the  part  of  the  Catholics  (4) ; by  Sophronius  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  first  opponent  of  the  Monthelites  (5)  ; by  Pope  St. 
Martin  I.  in  the  Council  of  Lateran  (6) ; by  St.  Maximus, 
disputing  with  the  Monotlielite,  Pyrrhus ; by  the  6th  General 
Council,  in  Action  8 ; by  Pope  Agatho,  writing  to  Constan- 
tine Pogonatus ; by  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (7) ; by  Pope  Adri- 
an I.,  in  his  letter  to  Charlemagne  on  the  Seveuth  Council ; 
by  Pope  Nicholas  I.,  addressing  the  emperor  Michael ; by 
Hincmar  of  Rlieims  and  Anastasius,  writing  to  Charles  the 
Bald  ; by  Pliotius,  one  of  the  most  rigid,  as  well  as  one  of 
the  most  learned  of  critics  (8) ; by  St.  John  Damascene  (9) ; 
by  St  Thomas  of  Aquin  (10) ; by  the  erudite  Cardinal  Bessar- 
ion  (11).  Secondly,  the  author  of  these  books  speaks  of  him- 
self in  a way  that  indicates  him  to  have  been  a contempo- 
rary of  the  Apostles.  Thus  (12)  he  calls  himself  a disciple 
of  St.  Paul ; he  declares  that  he  was  present  at  the  obse- 
quies of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  together  with  Sts.  Peter  and 
James  (13)  ; he  says  he  witnessed  the  disappearance  of  the 


(1)  IbL  (2)  Nicephorcs  Calustus  : History,  b.  15,  c.  14.  (3)  Against  Xestorius 

and  Eutj/che*.  b.  2.  (4)  Gen.  Council  of  Constantinople  ( 3rd ),  Action  2. 

(5)  Etrislle  to  Sergius.  (6)  See.  1 and  8.  (7)  Homily  34,  on  St.  Luke's  GitispcL 

(8)  Coder . 231.  (9)  Orthodox  Faith . b.  1,  c.  15.  (10)  Sentences  II..  diet.  10,  q.  1,  art.  12. 

(11)  Platonic  Defence,  b.  2,  c.  3.  (12)  Divine  Xames.  c.  2, 


, IU,  U.  I,  U7  l. 

dh  Ibi.  c.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


78 


STUDIES*  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY;*  * 


sun  on  the  death  of  Christ  (!)  Finally,  the  great  Erasmus, 
the  leader  of  the  opponents  of  the  Dionysian  claims,  could 
adduce,  in  favor  of  his  theory,  only  the  names  of  Lorenzo 
Valla  and  William  Grocinus.  Against  the  authenticity  of 
these  works,  Theodore,  an  author  much  praised  by  Photius, 
proposes  four  questions,  and  answers  them.  First,  why  do 
none  of  the  Fathers  quote  the  works  of  the  Areopagite  ? 
This  is  answered  by  a denial  of  the  supposition.  Second, 
how  is  it  that  Eusebius,  enumerating  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers,  does  not  mention  those  of  Dionysius?  St.  Max- 
imus Martyr  replies  that  Eusebius  tells  us  that  many  of 
such  writings  had  not  reached  him,  and  Alexandre  observes 
that  Eusebius  makes  no  mention  of  the  works  of  Athenago- 
ras,  which  are  celebrated,  and  of  undoubted  authenticity. 
Third,  how  is  it  that,  while  Dionysius  was  a contemporary 
of  the  Apostles,  he  alludes  to  traditions  which  arose  in  after 
times  ? To  this  the  friends  of  the  Dionysian  claims  reply  that 
it  is  false  that  said  traditions  were  not  from  Apostolic  days  ; 
that  the  persecutions  of  the  early  days  had  prevented  the 
use  of  much  of  the  ceremonial,  which  was  nevertheless  of 
Apostolic  origin,  and  they  cite  St.  Basil  (2),  saying,  “ We 
bless  the  water  of  Baptism,  and  the  oil  of  Unction,  and  al- 
so him  who  is  baptized  ; but  on  (the  authority  of)  what  writ- 
ings ? Is  it  not  from  silent  and  secret  tradition  ? Where 
is  the  triple  immersion  found  in  Scripture  ? And  the  other 
things  performed  in  Baptism,  such  as  the  renunciation  of 
Satau  and  his  angels,  from  what  Scripture  do  we  drive 
them  ? Is  it  not  from  this  unpublished  and  hidden  tradi- 
tion ? In  this  manner,  the  Apostles  and  the  Fa- 

thers, who,  in  the  first  days  of  the  Church,  prescribed  cer- 
tain rites,  preserved  in  silence  the  dignity  of  the  Mysteries.” 
Fourth,  how  is  it  that  St.  Dionysius  cites  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Ignatius  to  the  Romans , when  the  former  was  martyred  un- 
der Domitian,  and  the  latter  suffered  under  Trajan,  and 
wrote  his  Epistle  just  before  his  death  ? Alexandre  believes 
that  this  citation  is  an  interpolation,  but  it  is  unnecessary 
to  recur  to  such  a supposition,  as  St.  Dionysius  did  not 
suffer  under  Domitian,  but  in  the  last  year  of  Trajan,  or  the 

(1)  F i riM . 7,  tn  PolycurjK  <2)  Holy  Glimt . c.  27. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  79 


first  cf  Adrian  (1).  It  is  also  urged  against  the  authenti- 
city of  these  works  that  the  author  styles  St.  Timothy  his 
son,  an  implication  of  superiority  cf  which  the  holy  Areop- 
agite  would  not  have  been  guilty.  The  reply  to  this  ob- 
jection is  that  there  was  no  undue  assumption,  on  the  part 
of  Dionysius,  in  so  speaking  of  Timothy.  St.  Timothy  j 
was  much  younger  than  the  Areopagite  ; St.  Paul  himself 
alludes  to  his  extreme  youth.  A third  objection  is  found- 
ed upon  the  mention,  in  the  book  on  The  Ecclesiastical  Hie- 
rarchy, of  the  monastic  institution  as  already  established, 
while,  it  is  alleged,  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  first  two 
centuries  do  not  speak  of  monks.  Alexandre  (2)  replies  at 
some  length  to  this  argument,  and  shows,  that  while  the 
monastic  state,  as  we  now  have  it,  did  not  exist  for  some 
time  after  St.  Dionysius,  yet,  from  Apostolic  times,  there 
were  such  monks  as  the  Areopagite  depicts  ; who  were  re- 
garded as  laics,  and  were  subject  to  the  bishops,  and  even  to 
the  priests ; who,  devoted  to  God,  and  free  from  earthly 
cares,  lived,  sometimes  at  home,  often  in  community;  to 
whom,  immediately  after  the  clergy,  place  was  accorded  in 
the  sacred  services  (3).  Morin  urges,  as  agaiust  the  author- 
ship of  St.  Dionysius,  that,  in  the  book  on  the  Celestial 
Hierarchy,  the  word  hypostasis  is  used  to  signify  “ person,’* 
as  distinct  from  essence  ; while  we  know,  lie  says,  that  this 
term  began  to  be  so  used,  only  after  the  synod  of  Alexan- 
dria of  362.  To  this  may  be  answered  that,  nevertheless,  the 
Areopagite  may  have  so  used  it.  There  was  certainly  a 
first  to  adopt  the  term  in  the  new  sense ; why  should  not 
he  have  been  the  one  ? He  certainly  understood  the  force 
of  the  word,  and  knowing  that  it  admirably  indicated  those 
substances,  which,  in  intelligent  natures,  we  designate  as 

persons,”  it  was  quite  natural  for  hini.  a sublime  philoso- 
pher, to  apply  the  term  to  the  three  Divine  Persons,  and  style 
God,  Trishypjstatos , that  is,  a Being  subsisting  in  Three  I 
Persons.  But  it  is  not  true  that  the  word  hypostasis  received  • 
its  new  signification  after  the  synod  of  Alexandria  in  362 
St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  response  to  the  fourth  pro- 

U)  Conf.  8 u Idas,  Roman  Matiyrolngy : Rede:  Ado  of  Vienne. 

(2)  Cent.  dim*.  22.  (3)  See  the  Rpistle  of  Dionysius  to  DeimtphUw*. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


80 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8TORY. 


position  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  says  of  the  Persons  of  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  “ They  are  two  inseparable  hypostases” 
St.  Alexander,  also  of  Alexandria,  in  a letter  to  Alexander 
of  Constantinople  (1),  declares  that  “ of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  there  are  two  natures  in  hyposta.su'  And,  according 
to  St.  Basil  the  Great  (2),  the  Council  of  Nice  (325)  used 
the  word  hypostasis  for  “person”  when,  in  its  Exposition  of 
Faith,  it  condemned  those  who  asserted,  that  the  word  u was 
made  from  another  subsistence  or  substance.”  According 
to  St.  Gregcry  of  Nyssa  (3),  when  St.  Paul  in  Hebrews , /., 
speaks  of  “ the  figure  of  His  substance  ” (in  the  Greek, 
character  tis  hypostaseos ),  he  used  the  word  hyjtostasis  for  per- 
son.” Finally,  as  a member  of  the  Areopagus,  St  Diony- 
sius was  certainly  well  versed  in  the  wTorks  of  Aristotle, 
and  that  philosopher,  in  his  work  on  The  World , uses  hypos- 
tasis in  another  sense  than  that  of 44  essence.”  He  says,  “of 
those  things  which  we  observe  in  the  air.  some  only 
appear,  others  are  ; ” the  Greek  text  has  4t  are  hath 9 hypos - 
tasin .”  In  the  supposition  that  St.  Dionysius  was  not  the 
author  of  the  works  bearing  liis  name,  critics  are  at  an  ut- 
ter loss  to  whom  to  ascribe  them.  The  famous  Dominican, 
Le  Quien,  in  his  edition  of  the  writings  of  St.  John  Damas- 
cene, endeavors  to  prove  that  the  unknown  was  a Mono- 
physite  heretic  (4). 

St.  Ignatius,  Martyr,  a disciple  of  St.  John  the  Evangel- 
ist, and  third  bishop  of  Antioch,  called  by  th*,  * Iden  Greeks 
Theophorus , because  they  believed  him  to  have  been  the 
child  embraced  by  the  Saviour,  Matt .,  18  3,  has  been  repu- 
ted the  author  of  many  works  which  are  undoubtedly  spu- 
rious. Thus,  the  Epistles  addressed  to  the  Blessed  Virgin , 
and  the  two  inscribed  to  St.  John , those  to  Mary  Cassabdhe , 
to  the  Tarsians . to  the  Ant iochenes,  to  Hero , and  to  the  Philip - 
pians , give  intrinsic  evidence  of  their  worthlessness,  and 
are  defended  by  none.  But  there  are  seven  other  Epistles 

(1)  Theodorft:  KMnru.  b.  1,  c,  3.  (2)  Epistle  78.  (3)  ‘ - and  Uy. 

postasi *,  written  *o  Pe'er. 

(4)  Roncaglia,  in  his  2 i Anirru.lversinn  to  Alexander’s  dls*ertu..  ^ . . abject,  gives 

several  additional  reasons  why  these  works  should  be  deemed  spurious.  The  most  conclu- 
sive are  1st,  the  author  explains  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  even  more  clear! v than  is  done 
by  Athanasius:  2d,  he  alludes  to  no  persecution  of  the  Church:  3d,  he  quote*  :he  Gospel 
And  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  which  were  composed  in  the  old  age  of  the  Apostle,  while  the 
Areopaglte  tells  us  that  his  own  works  were  of  his  younger  days. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  81 

of  St.  Ignatius,  addressed  to  the  Ephesians , to  the  Magnesi- 
ans}  to  the  TraRians , to  the  Romans , to  the  Philadelphians , 
to  the  Smymiotes,  and  to  St.  Polycarp . These  seven,  as 

they  are  presented,  according  to  the  common  Greek-Latin 
edition,  in  all  but  the  very  latest  Patrologies , are  interpola- 
ted and  corrupted.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  pas- 
sages of  the  Epistles , quoted  by  the  ancient  Fathers,  are 
either  not  found  in  this  edition,  or  are  given  in  very  differ- 
ent language ; again,  because  there  are  many  things  there- 
in foreign  to  the  age  of  the  reputed  author.  These  same 
seven  Epistles , however,  as  they  are  read  in  the  editions  form- 
ed from  the  Greek  codex  discovered  by  Isaac  Voss  in  the 
Medicean  Library,  and  from  the  two  Latin  MSS.  found  \v. 
England  by  Usher,  are  regarded  as  authentic  by  the  bes 
Protestant  critics.  De  Saumaise,  Daille,  Blondel,  and  some 
others,  reject  them.  They  certainly  agree  with  the  character 
of  their  reputed  author,  and  with  the  genius  of  the  age  in 
which  he  lived;  which  is  no  slight  argument  in  favor  of 
their  authenticity.  They  refute  the  heresies  of  his  day  ; 
they  use  no  testimony  but  that  of  Scripture;  they  speak  of 
the  Apostolic  gifts  yet  flourishing  in  the  Church ; they  are 
redolent  of  the  simplicity  of  the  Apostolic  age,  and  betray 
an  irrepressible  yearning  for  the  martyr’s  crown.  These 
characteristics  of  the  Epistles  powerfully  impressed  the  An- 
glican Pearson  in  their  favor,  and  he  devoted  much  of  his 
diligence  to  their  vindication.  Bnt  tbere  are  not  wanting 
more  positive  arguments  for  their  authenticity.  Many  of 
the  Fathers,  and  ancient  Ecclesiastical  writers,  quote  them 
as  by  Ignatius,  and  many  speak  of  Ignatius’  writings  as 
showing  the  very  characteristics  which  we  observe  in  those 
before  us.  Thus,  St.  Polycarp  (1)  praises  them  as  condu- 
cive to  the  spiritual  profit  of  the  reader ; St.  Irenaeus,  ac- 
cording to  Eusebius  (2),  quotes  them  several  times ; Origen 
(3),  St.  Athanasius  (4),  St.  Jerome  (5),  Tbeodoret  (6),  and 
many  others,  mention  one  or  more  of  them.  Daille  objects 
that  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  were  unknown  to  ecclesiastical 
writers  before  the  time  of  Eusebius ; that  even  St.  Chrysos- 

(1)  Epist.  to  Philippians.  (4)  Epist.  on  Synods  of  Rimini  and  Seleuda. 

(2)  HisL.b.  5,  c.  8,  and  b.  3,  c.  86  (5)  Eccles.  Writers. 

(8)  Homily  6,  on  Luke.  (6)  Dialogue : ImmutaJbilis. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


82 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tom,  an  Antiochian,  ignored  them;  that  the  same  may  be 
said  of  Terfcullian,  who  teaches  things  contrary  to  these 
writings  ; of  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  not  only 
does  not  mention  them,  but  even  holds  different 
opinions,  on  certain  matters,  from  those  expressed 
herein;  of  St.  Epiphanius,  who  would  have  cited  them 
against  Aerius,  a bitter  enemy  of  the  episcopal  dignity, 
had  he  deemed  them  authentic.  But  because  certain 
authors  seem  to  ignore  these  Epistles,  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  all  did  so,  and  we  know  that  the  contemporaneous 
Polycarp  and  Irenacus  approved  of  them.  Again,  how  can 
Daille,  or  any  other  critic,  prove  that  the  cited  fathers  ig- 
nored the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  ? Their  silence  shows  nothing, 
since  we  do  not  possess  all  of  their  works,  and  in  those 
which  have  perished,  there  may  have  been  some  mention  of 
these  documents.  As  for  the  argument  deduced  from  Ter- 
tullian’s  contrary  teaching,  if  it  avails  anything,  it  shows 
equally  well  that  he  was  unacquainted  with  the  Gospels  and 
Apostolic  writings,  for  he  sometimes  contradicts  even  them 
(1).  With  regard  to  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Daille’s 
reasoning  is  ineffective,  for  in  none  of  his  works  does  the 
holy  bishop  mention  any  author  of  the  second  century ; not 
even  Poly  carp,  Justin,  Athenagoras,  Dionysius,  Hippolyte, 
Hegesippus,  or  Irenaeus,  of  whose  works  Daille  certainly 
did  not  believe  him  ignorant  or  suspicious  (2).  To  prove 
St.  Clement  s opinions  diverse  from  those  of  St.  Ignatius, 
Daille  adduces  the  former’s  assertion  that  the  preaching  of 
Christ  lasted  but  one  year,  while  the  latter  represents  our 
Lord’s  mission  as  extending  through  three  years.  But 
this  assertion  of  St.  Ignatius  is  not  found  in  the  only  reli- 
able codices,  viz.,  the  Medicean  and  the  Anglican.  As  to 
St.  Epiphanius,  Daille  can  draw  very  little  comfort  from  his 
silence,  for  he  does  not  mention  Papias,  Hegesippus,  The- 
ophilus,  Athenagoras,  Agrippa,  Cains.  Dionysius,  Miltiades, 
whose  writings  he  must  have  read  ; and  when  he  does  cite 
an  author,  he  never  quotes  his  words  in  confutation  of  a 

( 1 ) Thus,  in  his  book  entit  led  an  Exhortation  to  ('haxt  ity , he  condemns  second  marriages  as 
lecheries. 

(2)  In  his  Stromata,  St.  Clement  Alex,  only  cites  Barnalwis,  Clement  of  Rome.  Hermes  and 
Tatlan. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITERS  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY.  83* 


heretic’s  doctrine,  but  rather  uses  him  as  an  historian  of 
that  particular  heresy.  No  wonder  then  that  he  does  not 
adopt  the  Epistle  of  St.  Ignatius  against  the  teaching  of 
Aerius.  St.  John  Chrvsostotn  gives  no  assistance  to  Daille 
for  though  he  does  not  expressly  cite  the  Epistles , he  quotes 
the  words  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans , where  the  future 
martyr  expresses  his  yearning  for  the  crown  (1). 

The  book  entitled  The  Pastor  seems  to  be  authentic,  and 
to  have  been  written  by  Hennas,  a disciple  of  St.  Paul.  It 
is  divided  into  three  parts,  Visions , Commandments , and 
Similitudes.  The  edition  of  Ootelier,  inserted  in  his  Apostolic 
Fathers,  and  learnedly  annotated,  is  by  far  the  best  we 
possess.  Many  Protestant  critics  dispute  the  genuineness 
of  this  work.  In  it  we  find  an  assertion  of  the  free  will  of 
man,  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  other  Catholic  dogmas. 
The  authorship  of  The  Pastor  was  ascribed  to  Hermas,  a 
brother  of  Pope  Pius  I.,  by  the  unknown  poet  who  wrote 
under  the  name  of  Tertullian,  Against  Marcion , h.  3;  by  the 
author  of  the  Epistles  assigned  to  Pope  Pius  I.;  by  Venera- 
ble Bede,  and  by  Ado  of  Vienne.  But  a book,  written  by  a 
brother  of  a Homan  Pontiff,  would  scarcely  have  been  al- 
most unknown  in  the  Western  Church,  as  St.  Jerome  (2) 
says  was  the  case  with  The  Pastor  ; indeed,  it  would  have 
acquired  a greater  notoriety  in  the  West  than  in  the  East. 
(3).  Brucker  holds  that  The  Pastor  is  the  work  of  a fanatic, 
indoctrinated  with  the  Platonic  and  Egyptian  philosophies,, 
and  he  bases  his  assertion  upon  the  fact  that  Hermaa 
teaches  that  each  individual  is  at  tended  by  a good  and  an  evil 
genius.  Mosheim  accuses  this  author  of  a pious  fraud,  in 
saying  that  he  was  instructed  by  an  angel,  and  of  declar- 
ing himself  inspired,  because  he  desired  his  book  to  be 
read  in  the  churches — accusations  certainly  not  sustained 
by  the  allegations.  Le  Clerc  is  moro  moderate  in  hia 
opinion  of  Hermas,  and  even  pretends  to  excuse  some  al- 
leged errors.  Origen  identified  this  author  with  the  person 

(1)  Oration  on  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Ignat  iw*. 

(2)  Eccles.  irrfters,  art.  Hernia,*. 

(3)  Mosheim  contends  that  the  identity  of  Hernias  with  the  brother  of  Pope  Pius  1. 1* 
proved  beyond  doubt,  by  a fragment  on  the  Scripture  Canon  published  by  Louis  Anthony 
Mura  tori  in  his  Italian  Antufuitte # of  the  Middle  Age*,  and  which  he  found  in  the  Librarv- 
of  Milan. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


34 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


spoken  of  by  St.  Paul,  Rom .,  xvi,  14,  saying,  “ salute  Her- 
mas.”  His  work  is  cited  with  respect  by  Sts.  Irenaeus,  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  Athanasius,  and  by  Tertullian  and 
Eusebius. 

Some  of  these  authors,  influenced,  in  all  probability,  by  the 
purity  of  morals  found  in  TJve  Pastor , and  by  its  simplicity 
of  style,  regard  it  as  equal  in  authority  to  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles,  but  Sts.  Jerome  and  Prosper  did  not  esteem 
it  as  valuable.  Pope  Gelasius,  in  496,  placed  it  among  the 
apocrypha,  but  such  a decision,  of  course,  does  not  condemn 
the  book  as  unworthy  of  respect ; it  simply  means  that  it 
does  not  belong  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  Bergier  thus 
repels  the  charge  of  pious  cheating  brought  by  Mosheim 
against  Hermas : “ Without  any  imposture,  Hermas  may 
have  believed  that  his  interlocutor  was  an  angel  ; he  may 
have  believed,  without  wishing  to  claim  any  inspiration, 
that  it  was  an  angel  who  instructed  him.  He  could  have 
wished  his  book  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  even  though  he 
did  not  place  it  on  an  equality  with  the  Scriptures  ; for  we 
know  from  the  ancients  that  the  first  epistle  of  St.  Clement 
was  read  there The  consequences  which  Mos- 

heim draws  from  these  facts  are  false,  and  only  show  his 
malignity.’*  With  regard  to  Brucker’s  opinion,  Bergier 
asks : “ What  would  this  critic  reply,  if  he  were  told  that 
his  patriarch,  Luther,  derived  from  the  Orientals  the  opin- 
ion that  man  is  like  a horse,  who  goes  where  his  rider  di- 
rects ? If  he  carries  God,  he  goes  where  God  wishes  ; if  he 
carries  Satan,  he  goes  as  Satan  desires.  Cotelier  and  Le 
Nourry  have  shown  that  this  passage  of  Hermas  is  only  an 
allegory,  and  that  the  basis  of  the  idea  may  have  been  drawn 
irom  Scripture.” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  VL 


CONVERSION  OF  GAOL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  THE  AREOPAGITE. 

It  is  certain  that  the  Gospel  was  preached  in  Gaul  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  although  critics  dispute 
as  to  whom  should  be  awarded  the  merit  of  having  iirst 
brought  the  saving  tidings  to  the  favored  land  which  was 
destined  to  be  the  “ eldest  daughter  of  the  Church.”  Some 
have  though  that  St  Philip  the  Apostle,  St.  Lazarus,  and 
St.  Denis  the  Areopagite,  were  the  first  evangelizers  of  Gaul. 
Others,  however,  relying  on  the  testimony  of  Gregory  of 
Tours,  have  contended  that  no  churches  were  founded  there 
before  the  third  century  ; that  then  the  see  of  Tours  was  es- 
tablished by  Gratian,  that  ot  Arles  by  Trophimus,  that  of 
Narbonne  by  Paul,  Limoge  by  Martial,  Paris  by  Denis, 
Toulouse  by  Saturnine,  Auvergne  by  Stxemonius.  The 
voyage  of  Lazarus  and  of  Si  Mary  Magdalen  is  contested 
by  many  ot  the  erudite,  and  that  of  the  Areopagite  is  up- 
held by  few  modem  -writers.  It  is  evident  that  the  faith 
made  little  progress  before  the  mission  of  Si  Pothinus  and 
his  companions,  which  occurred  in  177.  From  the  acts  of 
these  Lyonese  martyrs,  tahen  from  the  letter  (supposed  to 
have  been  written  by  Si  IrenaBus)  of  the  churches  of  Lyons 
and  Vienne  to  the  faithful  of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  we  learn 
that  about  that  time  there  were  a great  many  Christians  in 
those  two  cities.  In  this  chapter  we  propose  to  show, 
first,  that  the  French  church  was  established  in  the  first 
century ; secondly,  that  a St.  Penis  the  Areopagite  was  not 
the  founder  of  the  see  of  Paris. 

St.  Irenaeus  (d.  202),  enumerating  the  churches  which 
preserved  that  unity  ot  tradition  which  furnishes  so  many 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  our  religion,  has  the  following  (1) : 
“ Although  there  are  many  different  languages  in  the  world, 
yet  the  power  of  Tradition  is  one  and  the  same.  There  is 
no  difference  ot  belief  or  of  Tradition  in  those  churches 

(1;  Heresies , b.  1,  c.  d. 

85 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


m 


which  have  been  founded  in  Germany  or  in  Spain,  or  among 
the  Celts,  or  in  the  East,  or  in  Egypt;  neither  is  there 
among  those  established  in  Libya,  or  in  the  middle  of  the 
world.”  In  the  time  of  St.  Irenaeus,  the  inhabitants  of 
Gaul  were  often  called  “ Celts  ; ” therefore,  at  that  period 
there  were  Christian  churches  in  Gaul.  The  same  is  prov- 
ed by  Tertullian  (b.  150),  speaking  of  the  “ various  Getuli 
and  many  lands  of  the  Moors,  all  the  regions  of  Spain,  and 
the  different  nations  of  Gaul,”  who  had  received  the  Gospel 
(1).  Again,  unless  the  Gospel  had  been  successfully  preach- 
ed in  Gaul  before  the  third  century,  St.  Justin  (b.  105),  in 
the  Dinhxjw  with  Tn/pho,  written  about  139,  would  not  have 
confidently  asserted  that  there  “ was  not  one  race  of  mortals, 
whether  Barbarian  or  Greek,  or  called  by  any  other  name, 
among  whom,  through  the  name  of  Jesus  crucified,  are  not 
offered  prayers  and  thanksgiving  to  the  Father  and  Maker 
of  all  things.”  Finally,  we  know  that  Trophimus  was  a 
disciple  of  St.  Paul  (Ads,  and  2 Tim.,  4) ; that  Crescens  was 
the  same  (Eusebius,  h.  3,  c.  4)  ; that  Paul  was  a “disciple  of 
the  Apostles”  (St.  Gregory  the  Great,  h.  7,  epist.  29)  ; that 
Martial  was  ordained  and  commissioned  by  St.  Peter  (Old 
Mart tj roloij ies) ; and  that  these  saintly  missionaries  respec- 
tively founded  the  churches  of  Arles,  Vienne,  Narbonne, 
and  Limoges.  The  authority  of  St.  Gregory  of  Tours  is  ad- 
duced by  some  to  show  that  these  prelates  were  sent  to 
Gaul  just  before  the  Consulate  of  Deeius  and  Gratus,  that 
is,  about  the  year  250.  But  this  writer  proves  himself  un- 
reliable in  many  instances.  Thus,  among  seven  mission- 
aries whom  he  represents  as  preaching  the  faith  in  Gaul  in 
the  third  century,  he  places  Saturninus  of  Toulouse,  and 
notwithstanding  this,  he  says  (Miracles,  b.  1,  c.  48)  that  this  . 
bishop  was  “ ordained  by  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles.” 
Gregory  also  tells  us  ( Glorif  of  the  Con  fessors , c.  8)  that  St. 
Ursinus  was  ordained  by  the  same  disciples,  and  that  lie 
established  the  church  of  Biturica  ; and  it  is  exceedingly 
improbable  that  the  more  celebrated  cities  would  have  been 
neglected.  Gregory  accounts  for  this  tardy  third  century 
mission  by  the  slow  and  limited  propagation  of  the  faith, 

Ai/ain#t  the  Jars,  c.  7. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  OF  GAUL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  AREOPAGITE.  87 

which  is  certainly  repugnant  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture, 
as  well  as  to  the  evidence  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian.  Dis- 
missing, therefore,  the  objection  founded  on  the  allegations 
of  Gregory  as  of  no  weight,  we  adduce  in  favor  of  the  first 
•century  mission  of  Trophimus  of  Arles,  the  action  of  the 
bishops  of  the  province  of  Vienne,  in  450,  in  reference  to 
the  metropolitic  claims  of  the  church  of  Arles.  This  latter 
church  had  been  deprived  of  its  metropolitan  privileges  on 
account  of  the  contumacy  of  Bishop  Hilarius,  who  re- 
fused to  obey  the  decree  of  Pope  Boniface,  restricting  his 
jurisdiction  within  the  province  of  Vienne.  In  a suppliant 
missive  to  Pope  St.  Leo  I.,  the  Viennese  prelates  requested 
the  Pontiff  to  restore  to  the  church  of  Arles  the  jurisdiction 
over  both  Narbonnes  which,  out  of  reverence  to  Trophimus, 
Pope  Zosimus  had  conferred  upon  it.  “ It  is  known,”  they 
said,  “ to  all  the  regions  of  Gaul,  and  it  is  not  unknown  to 
the  Holy  Roman  Church,  that,  in  all  Gaul,  the  city  of  Arles 
first  merited  to  have  from  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter  its 
priest  St.  Trophimus  ; and  from  it  did  the  other  Gallic  coun- 
tries derive  the  benefits  of  faith  and  religion.”  Had  these 
bishops  not  been  assured  of  the  solidity  of  their  position, 
they  would  not  have  used  this  argument  with  St.  Leo.  Had 
the  church  of  Arles  received  the  faith  only  in  the  third 
century,  as  Gregory  of  Tours  asserts,  the  fraudulent  claim, 
based  on  the  first  episcopacy  of  St.  Trophimus,  would  have 
been  repelled  by  Rome. 

That  St.  Crescens  preached  the  Gospel  in  Gaul  during 
the  first  century,  is  also  shown  by  excellent  authority.  Euse- 
bius (1)  writes  : “ Among  the  other  disciples  of  Paul,  Cres- 
cens is  said  to  have  been  sent  by  him  into  Gaul.”  St. 
Epiphanius  (2),  speaking  of  St.  Luke,  says:  “To  him  was 
entrusted  the  privilege  of  preaching  the  Gospel,  which  he 
exercised  first  in  Dalmatia,  Gaul,  Italy,  and  Macedonia  ; 
but  in  Gaul  first,  as  attests  Paul  in  his  Epistles  in  refer- 
ence to  some  of  his  companions  : ‘ Crescens,’  he  says,  ‘into 
Gaul we  should  not  read  ‘ into  Galatia,'  as  some  haveim- 

(1)  HiMtyry , b.  3,  c.'4.  The  version  of  Christophorson  has  “in  Ga/fr?t(a,”  but  the  Greek 
text,  as  derived  from  the  best  codices,  and  from  Ruflnus.  has  epi  tax  Ualliax—"  into  tbe 
Gauls.”  Tbe  latter  reading  is  defended  by  Valois,  On  Timothy , chap.  4. 

(8)  Heresies,  no.  51. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


88 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


properly  done,  but  ‘into  Gaul.*  ” Theodoret  (1)  says  : “ Ores- 
cens  into  Galatia for  thus  he  named  the  Gauls.  Thus* 
they  were  anciently  designated.  Sophronius  (2)  tells  us 
that  “ Orescens  preached  the  Gospel  in  the  Gauls.*’  The- 
Alexandrian  Chronicle,  220th  Olympiad,  records:  “Having 
promulgated  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  J esus  Christ,  Crescent 
died  under  Nero,  and  was  buried.”  Ado  of  Vienne  writer 
in  his  Martyrology , under  date  of  the  5th  calends  of  July, 
“Into  Galatia,  the  Blessed  Crescens,  disciple  of  St.  Paul  the- 
Apostle ; who,  passing  into  the  Gauls,  converted  many  by 
the  word  of  preaching.  For  some  years  he  sat  in  Vienne,  a 
city  of  the  Gauls,  and  there  ordained,  as  bishop  for  him- 
self, his  disciple  Zachary.  Returning  however  to  the  Gala- 
tians, the  people  to  whom  he  had  been  especially  given 
as  bishop,  he  comforted  them  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  unto 
the  blessed  end  of  his  life.”  The  same  testimony  is  given 
in  the  Roman  Martyrology,  and  in  that  of  Usuardus  (3). 

The  Gallic  mission  of  St.  Martial  in  the  first  century  is 
proved  by  the  authentic  Tat)ularia  and  Offices  of  the  Church 
of  Limoges.  That  the  tradition  to  this  effect  was  regarded,, 
from  the  earliest  times,  as  well  founded,  is  evinced  from 
the  epistle  of  Pope  John  XX.,  read  in  1302  in  a synod  of 
Limoges,  and  which  rebuked  those  who  had  erased  the  name 
of  St.  Martial  from  the  list  of  apostles.  It  is  also  shown 
by  Pope  St.  Innocent  III.,  who,  in  an  Extravagant : On  Ex- 
treme Unction,  makes  mention  of  the  miracle  performed  bjr 
St.  Martial  during  his  Gallic  mission,  in  raising  a man  from 
the  dead  by  the  touch  of  St.  Peter’s  crozier  (4).  In  the 
ancient  Martyrology  of  Corbie,  we  read  under  the  date  of 
the  day  before  the  calends  of  July : “ Of  St.  Martial,  bishop, 
who,  having  been  ordained  at  Rome  by  the  Blessed  Apos- 
tles, was  sent  as  first  bishop  of  Limoges,  where,  illustrious 
for  many  virtues,  he  rested  in  peace.”  Similar  evidences* 

(1)  On  the  Epixt.  to  Tim .,  c.  4. 

(2)  Writer*. 

(3)  This  Martirrolouii  of  Usiiard,  a French  monk,  was  compiled  by  order  of  Charles  the 
Bald  (82:3-877),  and  was  the  one  ordinary  used  at  Rome  befo»e  that  of  Sixtus  V.  The  Mar - 
tyrolngii  of  Ado  was  made  up  from  the  Lesser  Roman,  itself  drawn  from  the  Great  Romar 
of  St.  Jerome,  and  that  of  Bede,  as  augmented  by  Florus  a subdeacon  of  the  church  dt 
Lyons.  Ado  compiled  It  after  his  return  from  Rome,  in  858.  Ir  served  as  a basis  for  tto 
Marturoloyii  of  Notker.  a Swiss  monk  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Gallo,  issued  in  894 

(4)  It  is  in  remem berance  of  this  event  that  to  this  day.  the  Pope  alone,  of  all  bishops 
carries  no  crozier ; St.  Peter  having  sent  his  to  St.  Martial. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  OF  GAUL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  AREUPAGITE.  89* 


can  be  adduced  for  the  mission  of  St.  Paul  of  Narbonne  (1). 

That  the  first  bishop  of  Paris  was  a St.  Denis  seems  to^ 
be  certain,  but  the  ancient  and  once  almost  universally  re- 
ceived theory  that  this  saint  was  no  other  than  the  Areo- 
pagite  philosopher,  is  now  rejected  by  the  best  critics.  In 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  Hilduin,  abbot  of  St. 
Denis,  offered  to  the  emperor  Louis  the  Pious  some  writ- 
ings on  this  subject,  in  which  he  cited  some  Acts  of  St.  Denis 
composed  by  Visbius,  a presumed  eye-witness  of  the  mar- 
tyr's passion.  In  these  Acts , it  was  recorded  that  Denis, 
the  Areopagite,  having  been  converted  by  St.  Paul,  was 
sent  by  Pope  St.  Clement  into  Gaul,  that  he  founded  the  see 
of  Paris,  and  was  there  martyred.  Mosheim  and  others  ac- 
cuse Hilduin  of  having  forged  these  Acts  in  the  interest  of 
the  celebrity  of  his  monastery.  This  allegation  is  contra- 
dicted by  the  reputation  the  abbot  enjoyed  among  his  con- 
temporaries (2),  and  by  the  centuries  during  which  many  of 
the  learned  gave  credence  to  the  Acts.  But  although  Hil- 
duin did  not  wish  to  deceive  others,  lie  was  himself  deceived, 
as  we  shall  see,  by  a similarity  of  name,  which  caused  him 
to  confound  two  different  personages.  Those  who  identify 
the  Areopagite,  with  St.  Denis  of  Paris  base  their  assertion, 
secondly,  upon  the  ancient  Life  of  St  Genevieve  (3),  written, 
says  its  author,  eighteen  years  after  the  virgin’s  death  (512). 
Here  we  also  read  that  St.  Denis  was  sent  to  Gaul  by  Pope 
St.  Clement,  and,  triumphantly  asks  Alexandre  (4),  “ Who 
else  can  that  be,  than  the  Areopagite  ?”  A third  argument 
is  found  in  a Hymn  in  honor  of  St.  Denis  by  Fortunatus  of 
Poitiers,  which  tells  us  that  “ he  was  sent  to  Gaul  by  Cle- 
ment of  Rome,  to  sow  the  seed  of  the  word.”  Passing  some 
other  arguments  of  minor  importance  (5)  which  are  adduced 
to  show  the  identity  of  the  Areopagite  and  the  bishop  of 
Paris,  we  come  to  one  upon  which  Alexandre  greatly  relies. 

Cl ) Mariyroiogy  of  Rossveyd.  Usuard  ; Day  before  the  Ides  of  December.  Ado  ; Feasts 
of  the  Apostles,  lltb  of  calends  of  April. 

(2)  Lupus,  abbot  of  Ferrieres  (epist.  110)  styles  Hilduin  “conspicuous  for  his  nobility,  dig- 
nity, and  moderation : a master  of  ecclesiastics.” 

(3)  This  Life  is  found  in  Surius,  Jan.  3rd,  and  in  the  MSS.  codices  of  St.  Remigius  of 
Rhelms.  formerly  preserved  in  the  monastery  of  Compiegne. 

(4)  Cent  /.,  dissert.  XV  L.  prop.  11. 

(5)  Eugenlusof  Toledo  (y.  650)  distinct)*'  says  that  the  Areopagite  went  to  Gaul.  Simeon 
Metapbrastes.  who  lived  during  the  reign  >f  Herjudius,  assorts  the  same.  PopeStepben  III, 
having  been  cured  by  the  intercession  of  St.  Denis  while  in  France,  erected  a monartery  in 
Rome,'  which  he  assigned  to  some  Greek  monks. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


90 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


St.  Methodius,  patriarch  ot  Constantinople  and  martyr,  in 
the  year  818,  came  to  Rome  as  an  imperial  legate,  and 
brought  with  him  a Life  of  St.  Denis  the  Areopagite , in 
which  we  read  : “ Then  this  Blessed  Denis,  ploughing  the 
sea  with  the  cross,  came  from  Athens  to  Rome,  led  on  the 
way  by  the  divine  will,  as  one  beloved  by  God.  Having 
entered  the  city,  and  found  the  Blessed  Clement,  who  occu- 
pied the  Apostolic  Chair,  he  was  received  with  such  honor  y 
as  circumstances  allowed.  St.  Antonine  being  sent  into 
the  regions  of  Aquitaine,  he  himself,  with  Sts.  Lucian,  Rus- 
ticus,  and  Eleutherius,  proceeded  to  the  city  of  Paris.  ..... 
Ht.  Denis  himself  remained  in  Paris.’’  Anastasius  the  Li- 
brarian tells  us  that  Methodius  drew  his  materials  for  this 
book  from  many  old  Greek  writings. 

The  testimony  of  St.  Methodius  would  certainly  be  of 
great  value,  if  there  were  not  good  reasons  for  supposing 
that  he  did  not  write  his  Life  of  St.  Denis  before  he  came 
to  Rome  in  818 ; that  hence  he  derived  his  opinions  from 
Hilduin,  who  published  his  book  about  the  year  834.  In 
this  chronological  question  lies  the  difficulty  we  experience 
in  accepting  the  authority  of  St.  Methodius.  Anastasius 
certainly  says  that  he  brought  the  book  to  Rome,  and  that 
he  derived  it  from  old  Greek  sources.  Nevertheless,  we 
agree  with  Roncaglia  (1),  that  St.  Methodius  derived  from 
Hilduin  the  theory  of  the  identity  of  the  bishops  of  Athens 
and  Paris.  Hilduin  says  that  “the  Greeks  have  written 
nothing  about  the  death  of  Denis  the  Areopagite,  because, 
on  account  of  the  distance,  they  knew  nothing  about  it.’ 
But  if  St.  Methodius  had  already,  sixteen  years  before  Hil- 
duin wrote,  published  his  theory,  and  one  founded,  too, 

“ upon  old  Greek  writings,”  the  abbot  of  St.  Denis,  a learned 
and  well  informed  man,  would  not  have  made  this  assertion. 
And  Hincmar,  in  an  Epistle  to  Charles  the  Bald,  tells  us 
that  he  had  read  the  work  of  St.  Methodius,  and  found  it 
conformable  to  what  he  had  learned  in  his  childhood  about 
St.  Denis,  “which  information  the  Greeks  had  derived  from 
the  Romans.”  We  therefore  deem  it  more  than  probable 
iihat  the  argument  derived  from  St.  Methodius  should  be 

(1)  Animadversion  UR,  on  Alexandre’s  Diss.  XVT.^cent.  T.%  prop.  II. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  OF  GAUL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  AREOPAGITE.  91 

regarded  as  of  no  more  weight  than  the  one  drawn  from  the 
Ads  presented  by  Hilduin  to  Louis  the  Pious.  What  value 
that  possesses,  we  now  proceed  to  examine. 

From  Hilduin  to  Alexandre,  with  very  few  exceptions, 
those  w o hold  that  the  Areopagite  was  the  first  bishop  of 
Paris,  bas*  their  argument  merely  upon  the  constant  tradi- 
tion that  Pope  St.  Clement  sent  a certain  St.  Denis  to  Gaul. 
They  conclude  that  tnis  personage  m st  have  been  the 
Areopagite,  simply  because  he  was  still  living  during  the 
Pontificate  ot  St.  Clement.  None  of  the  ancient  writers  as- 
ser  that  our  St.  Denis  the  Areopagite  was  made  bishop  of 
Paris,  or  even  went  into  Gaul.  On  the  contrary,  the  old 
Martyrologtes  make  an  explicit  distinction  between  the  two 
saints,  the  one  of  Athens,  and  the  other  of  Paris.  Adrian 
Valois  says:  “After  Sirmond,  Launoy  treats  this  question, 
adducing  all  the  ancient  MSS.  Martyrdogics  of  the  French 
church,  in  which  each  Den.s  is  located  in  the  month  of  Oc- 
tober, but  on  separate  days ; in  which  they  are  distin- 
guished, one  from  the  other,  by  different  sees,  and  different 
kinds  of  death;  in  which  one  (the  elder, and  the  Athenian) 
is  called  bishop  of  Athens,  and  is  said  to  have  there 
perished  by  fire,  while  the  other  (that  is.  ours)  is  styled 
bishop  of  Paris,  and  declared  to  have  been  be  Leaded  near 
the  city.  All  the  Gauls,  all  the  Franks,  in  fine  all  Chris- 
tians, down  to  the  ninth  century,  that  is,  to  the  time  of 
Louis  the  Pious,  son  of  Charlemagne,  always  distin- 
guished, as  I do,  two  Denises.  Then  the  legates  of  the 
Constantinopolitan  emperor,  often  coming  into  France,  and 
understanding  that  the  first  bishop  and  martyr  of  Paris  was 
called  Denis,  they  brought  forth  the  writings  (as  was  pre- 
tended) of  Denis  the  Areopag  te;  and  persuaded  Hilduin, 
abbot  of  St.  Denis,  that  this  author  was  the  bishop  of  Paris 
and  the  patron  of  that  monastery.  Most  willingly  believ- 
ing this,  he  composed  a book  of  Areopagitics,  full  of  fables, 
to  persuade  people  that  our  first  bishop  and  martyr  was  al- 
so the  Athenian  Areopagif  > So  much  availed  vanity,  wish- 
ing to  claim  an  Apostolic  origin  for  our  first  bishops,  pre- 
ferring a fable  and  an  imposture  to  solid  and  incontestable 
truth”  (1).  And  in  another  place : * I must  give  you  the 

(1)  In  Papebrock.  in  Answer  to  exhibition  of  errors,  Ac.,  art.  II,  9 4,  episL  1 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


92 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


words  of  Usuard,  a grave,  erudite,  and  exact  author,  who 
did  not  wish  to  follow  his  contemporary  Hilduin,  but,  in 
the  Martyrology  dedicated  to  Charles  the  Bald,  made  a sac- 
rifice to  truth,  first,  by  writing  under  date  of  the  Fifth  of 
October:  ‘Fifth  of  the  Nones  of  October.  At  Athens,  the 
natal  day  of  St.  Denis,  who,  after  a brilliant  confession  of 
faith,  and  most  terrible  torments,  was  crowned  with  a 
most  glorious  martyrdom,’  as  attests  Aristides  of  Athens,  a 
man  of  great  faith  and  wisdom,  in  his  work  on  the  Christian 
Religion . Behold  Denis  of  Athens,  or  the  Areopagite.  Then 
follows  the  other  under  date  of  the  Ninth  of  October,  thus  : 
‘ Sixth  of  the  Ides  of  October.  In  Paris,  the  natal  day  of 
the  holy  martyrs,  the  bishop  Denis,  the  priest  Rusticus, 
and  the  deacon  Eleutlierius.  The  said  blessed  bishop,  di- 
rected by  the  Roman  Pontiff  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  Gaul, 
came  to  the  aforesaid  city,  where  for  some  years  he  fulfilled 
his  allotted  task,  and  at  length,  being  seized  by  the  prefect 
Fescenninus,  completed,  together  with  his  companions,  his. 
martyrdom  by  the  sword”  (1^.  The  learned  Bollandist,  Sol- 
lier,  commenting  on  the  text  of  Usuard,  under  date  of  Oct. 
9,  when  is  recalled  the  memory  of  St.  Denis  of  Paris,  has 
the  following  : “ Restricted  within  the  limits  of  the  Martyrd- 
ogies , we  shall  only  allege  such  reasons  as  can  be  defended 
by  their  authority.  Behold  the  words  of  Jeromian  of  Cor- 
bie : ‘At  Paris,  the  natal  day  of  Sts.  Denis,  bishop ; Rusti- 
cus, priest ; and  Eleutherius,  deacon.’  Bede  agrees  with  this : 
‘At  Paris,  the  natal  day  of  the  holy  Martyrs,  the  bishop 
Denis,  Rusticus,  and  Eleutherius.’  You  have  also  the  Les- 
ser Roman:  ‘At  Paris,  the  bishop  Denis  with  his  compan- 
ions, punished  wTith  the  sword  by  Fescenninus.’  The  same 
is  the  opinion  of  Ado.  .....  Now  compare  these  with  the 
w'ords  under  date  of  Oct.  3d,  related  by  the  Lesser  Roman9 
Ado,  Usuard,  and  Notker,  and  you  will  clearly  see  that  in 
their  mind  the  Denis  of  this  day  is  very  different  from  the 
Areopagite.  The  Denis,  w'hose  feast  is  this  day  celebrated, 
is  called  bishop  of  Paris,  as  to  whose  century,  country,  mis- 
sion, companions,  and  deeds,  there  have  been  many  contro- 
versies, especially  during  the  last  century.”  Pagi  observes 

(1)  Idem,  epist.  2. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  OF  GAUL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  AREOPAGITE.  9? 

that  Hilduin  did  not  succeed  in  convincing  the  minds  of  the 
Martyrologists  of  his  own  Benedictine  order,  who  were 
really  or  nearly  his  contemporaries.  Thus,  as  we  have 
seen,  Ado,  Usuard,  and  Notker  are  plainly  averse  to  his 
theory.  Alexandre  uses  the  testimony  of  John  Scotus  Eri-  | 
gena,  who,  however,  militates  rather  against  his  theory,  for,, 
in  the  cited  passage  of  his  letter  to  Charles  the  Bald,  he 
clearly  says  that  only  the  more  recent  writers  assign  the 
Gallic  mission  totli  ; Areopagite  (1).  Alexandre  endeavora 
to  elude  the  force  of  the  argument  taken  from  the  Marty-rd- 
ogies  by  asserting  that  it  merely  proves  that  St.  Denis,  at 
different  periods,  occupied  the  episcopal  chairs  of  Athena 
and  Paris  ; that  in  the  Greek  Menology,  we  find  the  names- 
of  Sts.  Eustathius  and  Alexander  in  two  different  places  for 
a like  reason.  But  in  all  such  cases,  sa}rs  Roncaglia,  the 
Martyrclogy  obviates  danger  of  error  by  noting  the  place  of 
death ; and  in  the  case  of  St.  Denis,  wherever  the  Areopa- 
gite is  clearly  mentioned,  Athens  is  the  place  assigned. 
Again,  nearly  all  the  ancient  Martyrologies , when  speaking 
of  the  St.  Denis  of  Oct.  3d,  call  him  the  Areopagite ; they 
never  so  style  the  St.  Denis  of  the  9th.  Sirmond  (2)  says  of 
the  opinion  of  the  Holy  See  on  this  point : “ What  Roman 
Pontiff  ever  thought  of  styling  Denis  of  Paris  the  Areopa- 
gite, or  of  saying  that  the  Areopagite  ever  filled  an  episco- 
pal chair  other  than  that  of  Athens?  Stephen  III.,  it  is  said, 
was  cured  of  a disease  by  Denis  of  Paris.  Who  denies  it? 
Grateful  for  the  favor,  the  same  Pontiff  decreed  a temple  in 
Rome  in  his  honor,  and  it  being  built,  Paul,  brother  of 
Stephen,  and  his  successor,  dedicated  it.  But  what  then? 
Did  either  Stephen  or  Paul  call  this  Denis  the  Areopagite? 

Let  the  partisans  of  St.  Denis  (the  Abbey  of)  open 

their  archives,  and  examine  the  Diplomas  of  the  Pontiffs, 
all  that  they  have,  from  Zachary  down  to  Innocent  III.; 
they  will  never  read  otherwise  than  of  St.  Denis  Martyr,  of  I 
the  Monastery  of  St.  Denis  Martyr,  of  the  Abbots  of  St. 
Denis  Martyr.  Let  them  turn  to  the  Roman  archives,  and 

(1)  Erl  gena  rejects  the  theory  only  on  account  of  Its  newness,  and  Pag!  ascribes  this  to 
his  wish  not  to  contradict  Hincinar,  who  favored  Hilduln’s  Idea,  and  had  much  Influence 
with  king  Charles,  to  whom  Erigenu  was  writing. 

(8)  Dissertation  on  the  Two  Denims,  c.  6. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


94 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORi. 


what  we  have  lately  observed  of  the  Greek  writers,  they 
will  find  in  Martin,  Agatlio,  Adrian,  viz.,  that  whenever 
they  cite  the  words  of  Denis  the  Areopagite,  they  always 
designate  him  as  bishop  of  Athens,  never  of  Paris,  which 
they  would:  have  done,  had  he  migrated  from  Athens  to 
Paris.’* 

Alexandre  urges  against  the  argument,  derived  from  the 
constant  naming  of  the  Areopagite  as  bishop  of  Athens,  cer- 
tain instances  to  prove  that  not  always,  in  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, does  a translated  bishop  derive  his  title  from  his  new 
see.  It  is  the  general  ru^,  however ; and  of  all  the  instances 
cited  by  the  great  Dominican,  there  is  but  one  which  Pagi 
does  not  refute.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  Eusebius  of  Nicome- 
dia,  who  was  made  bishop  of  Constantinople  after  Alexan- 
der. and  who  continued  to  be  called  bishop  of  Ni comedia  (1), 
this  designation  was  his  only  legal  one,  for  he  had  usurped 
the  chair  of  Paul,  and  after  his  death,  Paul  was  restored. 
The  second  instance  cited  by  Alexandre  is  of  Theodore  of 
Perinthium,  who,  being  at  first  bishop  of  Heraclea  in  Thrace, 
was  made,  under  Valens,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  succeeding 
Euzoius,  and  was  styled,  nevertheless,  Heradeotes  (2).  But 
this  example  proves  nothing,  since  Philostorgius  (3)  tells  us 
that  Dorotheus,  not  Theodore,  succeeded  Euzoius  at  An- 
tioch. Alexaudre  also  adduces  the  instance  of  St.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzen,  who  was  transferred  from  the  coadjutorsliip 
to  his  father,  in  that  city,  to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  but 
was  always  called  Nazianzen.  This  argument  is  certainly 
unworthy  of  Alexandre,  for  he  could  not  have  forgotten, 
even  though  Homer  sometimes  sleeps,  that  St.  Gregory, 
for  love  of  peace,  soon  resigned  the  see  of  Constantinople, 
returned  to  Nazianzen.  and  there  ruled  until  his  death. 
There  remains  the  case  of  St.  Methodius,  who  was  transfer- 
red from  Patara  in  Lycia  to  Tyre,  but  continued  to  be  called 
bishop  of  Patara  (4).  To  this  instance  Pagi  well  observes 
that  Leontius,  who  alone  styles  Methodius  bishop  of  Patara, 
does  not  destroy  the  force  of  a rule,  nor  does  one  exception 
much  injure  its  application.  Again  Methodius  was  better 
known  as  bishop  of  Patara,  for,  while  in  that  see,  he  wrote 

(1)  Philostorgits  : h.  2,  r.  17.  (3)  Jhi.  />.  0,  r.  14. 

(2)  Tiieodouet  * b.  2,  c.  3.  (4)  Leontius  ; Sects,  act.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


CONVERSION  OF  GAUL,  AND  QUESTION  OF  AREOPAGITE.  93 

his  books.  Before  we  leave  this  topic  of  episcopal  transla- 
tion, we  may  remark,  with  Sirmond,  Pagi,  and  Rfmeaglia, 
that,  if  St.  Denis  the  Areopagite  had  been  transferred  from 
x Athens  to  Paris,  it  is  strange  that  such  translation  has  never 

been  cited  by  those  olden  writers  who  have  defended  the  oc- 
casional usefulness  of  such  procedure.  Other  instances  they 
have  gladly  mentioned,  but  in  regard  to  this  early  example 
they  have  been  silent  (1).  We  shall  conclude  our  reflections 
on  this  subject  by  remarking  that  both  the  Acts  of  St.  Denis 
of  Paris,  and  the  Life  of  St.  Genevieve , cited  by  Alexandre, 
assert  that  St.  Denis  was  ordained  by  St.  Clement  and  sent 
into  Gaul.  Now  if  he  was  ordained  by  St.  Clement,  he 
was  not  the  Areopagite,  for  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (2)  and 
the  Latin  and  Greek  Martyrologies  inform  us  that  the  latter 
was  ordained  by  St.  Paul. 

By  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  Christianity  had 
conquered  the  south  and  east  of  Gaul,  but  in  the  far  north 
and  in  the  west,  St.  Martin  (316-400)  found  Paganism  yet 
flourishing.  In  the  year  314,  a Council  of  Western  bishops 
was  held  at  Arles,  but  we  do  not  know  how  many  Gallic 
prelates  were  present.  At  the  Council  of  Nice,  in  325,  only 
one  Gallic  bishop  is  recorded  as  subscribing.  Arianism  did 
not  make  much  progress  in  Gaul,  although  Constantius,  its 
protector,  caused  a second  council  of  Arles,  in  353,  to  con- 
demn St.  Athanasius.  Thanks  principally  to  the  learning 
and  courage  of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  the  faith  of  Nice 
stoodfirm  ; only  Saturnine  of  Arles,  among  the  bishops,  re- 
mained obstinate,  and  the  synods  of  Beziers,  in  356,  and  of 
Paris,  in  360,  suspended  all  communion  with  the  Arians. 
In  384,  the  heresy  of  the  Priscillianists,  which  made  some 
progress  in  Spain,  was  condemned  by  a synod  at  Bordeaux. 
But  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  the  Goths  and 
Vandals,  infected  with  Arianism,  burst  into  Gaul,  and  the 
churches  and  clergy  suffered  much  at  their  hands.  The 
Franks,  however,  under  the  glorious  rule  of  their  kings, 
remained  faithful  to  the  Church,  and  when  the  storm  passed, 
religion  continued  to  develop. 

(1)  Auxlllus,  in  his  book  to  Leo  of  Nola,  defending  Pope  Kormosus  because  he  had  left 
the  see  of  Porto  for  that  of  Rome,  rites  many  Instances,  but  says  nothing  of  St.  Denis. 
In  the  ninth  century.  Pones  Adrian  II.  (epixt.  57)  and  Stephen  VI.  (epixt.  1)  both  justify  'he 
translation  of  bishops  by  early  precedents,  but  are  Silent  In  the  matter  of  Su  Denis. 

<*>  iiooA  7,c.  46. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


CHAPTER  YTL 

THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  SECRET. 

From  the  fact  that  in  the  very  early  days  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  there  seems  to  have  prevailed  a deep  silence 
in  regard  to  certain  doctrines,  Protestant  writers  contend 
that  such  teachings  were  unknown  to  our  ancestors  in  the 
faith.  While  this  silence  is  by  no  means  so  profound  as 
our  opponents  declare  it  to  be,  and  while  so  purely  negative 
an  argument  would  not  be  very  weakening  to  the  Catholic 
system,  yet  it  behooves  the  student  to  examine  the  bearings 
of  the  adverse  position,  and  to  form  a judgment  as  to  its 
strength.  When  this  is  done,  it  will  be  found  that  out  of 
*that  very  silence,  from  which  much  is  hoped,  there  comes 
a voice  proclaiming,  in  no  dubious  accents,  the  antiquity  of 
the  doctrines  in  question.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  first 
Christian  pastors  enjoined  upon  the  faithful  the  observance 
of  a certain  Disciflina  Arcani , or  Discipline  of  the  Secret, 
according  to  which  the  knowledge  of  certain  doctrines  was 
jealously  withheld,  not  only  from  Pagans  and  Jews,  but 
even  from  the  postulants  preparing  for  baptism.  So  con- 
vincing are  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of  some  such  rule  on 
the  part  of  the  early  Christians,  that  Protestant  historians 
(1)  readily  admit  them,  but  endeavor  to  attenuate  their  in- 
fluence by  assigning  the  introduction  of  the  discipline  to 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  by  confining  its  objects 
to  the  inhibition  of  certain  rites  to  the  Jews  and  Pagans. 
Matthew  Pfaff,  also  a Protestant,  agrees  with  Catholic  au- 
thors in  asserting  that  the  rule  in  question  was  established 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  it  prohibited  not  only  a 
participation  in  certain  ceremonies,  but  even  the  very 
knowledge  of  certain  dogmas.  (2) 

St.  Basil  the  Great,  in  his  book  on  the  Holy  Ghost,  chap. 
27,  speaking  of  the  Secret,  says  : “ The  Apostles  and  fathers, 

(1)  Cassaubon,  Basnage,  Tentzel,  Le  Clerc.  (2)  Last  diss.  on  theolc  gical  prejudices*  f 18. 

• 96 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  SECRET. 


97 


who  in  tli*  beginning  arranged  ecclesiastical  affairs,  in 
silence  and  in  secrecy  preserved  the  dignity  of  the  myster- 
ies. For  that  is  not  a mystery  which  is  wafted  to  the 
imprudent  and  popular  ear.”  The  testimony  of  St.  Basil 
is  certainly  of  great  weight  with  one  who  wishes  to  form  an 
idea  of  the  opinions  of  that  day,  and  he  lived  from  328  to 
379.  But  Tertullian,  who  goes  further  back,  (150-230) 
tells  us  of  the  heretics  of  his  time,  (1)  “ I mast  not  omit  a 
description  of  the  heretical  customs  ; how  futile,  how  earth- 
ly. how  human  they  are  ; without  gravity,  without  authority, 
without  discipline  ; in  fine,  fitting  to  their  faith.  Firstly, 
it  is  uncertain  who  is  a catechumen  and  who  a believer. 
Alike  they  approach,  alike  they  hear,  alike  they  pray.  Even 
when  the  Pagans  come  in,  the  holy  things  and  pearls,  albeit 
false  ones,  are  flung  to  the  dogs.”  Scarcely  a century  had 
passed  since  the  Apostles  made  their  regulations,  when 
these  words  were  written,  and  here  we  find  accused  of 
acting  without  authority  and  discipline,  those  who  pre- 
sumed to  manifest  certain  doctrines  to  the  Gentiles.  Had 
such  a custom  not  been  antagonistic  to  primitive  law,  even 
the  impetuous  Tertullian  would  scarcely  have  made  such 
an  ebullition.  But  in  his  Apdogy , chap.  7,  this  father  af- 
fords us  perhaps  a better  argument.  The  Pagans  had 
charged  the  Christians  with  secretly  celebrating  the  Thyes- 
tean  banquets.  (2)  Refuting  the  calumny,  Tertullian  brings 
forward  the  discipline  of  the  Secret,  declaring  that  even  if 
the  Christians  were  guilty  of  such  atrocities,  the  crimes 
could  not  be  discovered,  as  no  strangers  were  admitted  to  the 
reunions,  and  the  participants  were  prohibited  to  reveal  any 
of  the  proceedings.  He  says  : “ If  we  always  lie  hidden, 
when  was  revealed  what  we  perform  ? And  by  whom  could 
it  be  revealed?  Not  by  the  guilty  parties,  for  silence  is  im- 
posed in  regard  to  all  the  mysteries  ...  If  they  have  not  be- 
trayed themselves,  then  the  revelation  came  from  strangers. 
But  whence  did  the  strangers  receive  the  information,  when 
reverent  efforts  always  keep  the  profane  at  a distance?” 
According  to  Tertullian,  therefore,  the  secret  discipline  was 

(1 ) Prcencript.i  chap.  4i . 

(8)  Thyestes,  son  of  Pelops  and  brother  of  Atreus,  committed  adultery  with  the  latter's 
Wife,  and  to  revenge  himself.  Atreus  caused  him  to  eat  the  flesh  of  his  own  son. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


98 


STUDIES  IN  CHUKCH  H18T0UY. 


in  full  vigor,  not  only  in  his  time,  but  had  come  down  from 
the  days  of  Tiberius — Apostolic  times. 

An  objection  against  the  existence  of  the  Secret,  regarded 
as  a concealment  of  certain  doctrines,  is  adduced  from  the 
command  of  Christ  to  preach  the  new  Gospel  from  the 
house  tops.  But  nothing  can  be  found  in  this  command 
which  can  militate  either  for  or  against  the  system.  As 
the  context  shows,  our  Lord  wished  to  show  that  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  the  injunctions  and  threats  of  men  were  to  be 
of  no  weight  in  the  scale  of  our  duty.  He  immediately 
adds  that  we  should  not  fear  those  who  can  kill  the  body, 
but  cannot  kill  the  soul.  And  we  read  in  Mutth .,  c.  7,  that  we 
should  not  throw  holy  things  to  dogs,  nor  pearls  to  swine. 
Both  commands  were  admirably  reconciled  by  the  Church 
when  on  the  oue  hand  she  sent  her  martyrs  to  painful 
death,  and  on  the  other,  in  her  Secret  Discipline,  she  kept 
the  unbaptized  in  ignorance  of  certain  doctrines  which  as 
yet  they  “could  not  bear.” 

The  Apology  of  St.  Justin  is  sometimes  adduced  to  show 
that,  in  the  time  of  that  father,  the  secret  system  was  not 
yet  in  vogue.  This  document  was  presented  by  the  martyr 
to  Antoninus  Pius,  who  reigned  138-161,  and  in  it  we  find  a 
plain,  though  succinct,  account  of  the  doctrines  of  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist,  and  also  a narrative  of  the  doings  of 
the  Christians  in  their  hidden  assemblies.  It  is  strange, 
we  are  told,  that  St.  Justin  would  so  violate  an  important 
law  of  the  Church.  But  from  the  contents  of  this  Apology 
we  must  logically  conclude  neither  that  there  was  a dis- 
obedience on  the  part  of  St.  Justin,  nor  that,  as  is  urged, 
the  law  did  not  exist.  The  Church  has  always  varied  her 
discipline  according  to  the  adjuncts  of  time,  place,  and  cir- 
cumstances ; now  mitigating  it,  now  rendering  it  more  severe, 
in  order  that,  without  a sacrifice  of  essentials,  she  might  be 
all  things  to  all  men.  The  circumstances  of  the  Christians 
in  the  days  of  St.  Justin  were  peculiar.  Fearful  rumors 
of  Christian  wickedness  were  rampant  ; it  was  even  believed 
that  in  their  secret  meetings,  new-born  infants  were  slain, 
their  blood  imbibed,  and  their  flesh  devoured.  It  became 
necessary  then  that  some  responsible  person  should  be 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  SECRET. 


99 


permitted,  nay,  probably  enjoined,  to  inform  the  Pagan 
world  as  to  what  was  promulgated  and  what  done  in  those 
mysterious  conclaves  about  which  gossip  so  wildly  raved. 
Hence  St.  Justin  addressed  the  emperor  and  the  senate,  in- 
forming them  especially  of  the  nature  of  the  Eucharistic 
sacrifices,  between  which  and  the  fearful  rites  of  the  Thyes- 
tean  banquets  there  was  no  real  analogy.  And  the  very  fact 
of  the  spread  of  this  terrible  accusation  conclusively  proves 
that  the  real  nature  of  the  Eucharistic  mystery  must  have 
been  hitherto  carefully  hidden  from  the  Gentiles,  or,  in 
other  words,  it  shows  the  preceding  existence  of  the  Secret 
Discipline. 

Let  us  now  approach  the  subject  matter  of  the  system. 
Protestant  critics  generally  hold  that  it  embraced  merely 
certain  rites  of  worship,  and  not  certain  heads  of  doctrine. 
As  has  been  already  hinted,  the  elucidation  of  this  point  is 
of  importance,  since  Protestants  found  an  argument  against 
the  antiquity  of  some  Catholic  teachings,  upon  the  silence 
thereon  of  the  fathers.  Now  Origen  (185-254)  alludes  to- 
this  silence,  and  gives  a reason  for  it.  His  antagonist 
Celsus,  having  designated  Christian  doctrine  as  clancu - 
larva,  he  presses  him  as  follows,  “ Since  he  often  calla 
our  doctrine  a secret  one,  he  must  be  refuted,  for  our  teach- 
ings are  better  known  to  the  entire  world,  than  are  the 
whims  of  the  philosophers.  Who  knows  not  that  Jesua 
was  born  of  the  Virgin,  affixed  to  the  cross,  and  risen  from 
the  dead;  that  there  is  to  come  a judgment  by  which  the 
unjust  will  be  visited  with  merited  suffering  and  punish- 
ment ? Is  not  the  mystery  of  the  resurrection  on  the  tongue 
of  the  infidels,  so  that  their  ignorance  is  ridiculous? 
Certainly,  then,  he  is  silly  who  calls  our  doctrine  a hidden 
one.  Of  course  there  are  certain  more  recmdite  teachings , not 
manifest'd  to  alt , and  this  method  is  common  to  Christianity 
and  philosophy,  for  this  latter  has  some  things  acroamatic 
and  some  things  exoteric  (1).  To  some  of  the  disciples  of 
Pythagoras,  it  was  more  than  sufficient  to  hear  that  he 
had  “so  said.”  Anything  stronger  than  the  above  can 
scarcely  be  desired  for  the  defence  of  our  position,. 

(1)  The  doctrine  openly  taupht  were  called  Exot«*rie  ; those  manifest,  d to  a favored  fewv 
were  sty'.wd  acroamatic  or  Esoteric. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


100 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


but  it  may  be  well  to  enter  a little  into  detail,  and  see 
whether  the  olden  writers  allude  by  name  to  any  of  the 
acroamatic  doctrines.  The  most  sublime  of  all  Chris- 
tian dogmas  is  that  of  the  Unity  and  Trinity  in 
God.  Facing  an  idolatrous  world  with  the  fundamental 
teaching  that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Church  felt  it  to  be 
more  prudent  to  withhold  the  companion  doctrine  of  a 
Trinity  of  Persons  from  her  catechumens  until  their  minds 
had  been  prepared  by  grace  and  discipline  to  properly, 
albeit  inadequately,  understand  it.  When  this  time  arrived, 
that  is,  a few  days  before  the  reception  of  baptism,  the 
appointed  catechist  unfolded  the  tremendous  article  of 
divine  faith.  In  his  sixth  Catechism , no.  29,  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  plainly  shows  us  both  the  fact  and  the  economy 
of  the  Church  in  this  matter.  Addressing  the  candidate, 
he  says  : “ To  thee  who  art  come  forth  from  the  ranks  of 
catechumens,  the  Church  now  manifests  these  mysteries 
which  it  is  not  the  custom  to  lay  open  to  the  Gentiles ; for 
we  do  not  show  the  infidel  what  pertains  to  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  nor  even  to  the  catechumens  do  we 
speak  openly  about  the  mysteries  ; and  this  in  order  that  the 
informed  iaitliful  may  understand,  and  the  uninformed 
may  not  be  injured.”  St.  Cyril  was  born  in  the  year  315, 
and  it  ma\  be  alleged  that  such  testimony  does  not  affect 
the  Protestant  assertion  that  the  concealment  of  certain 
dogmas  was  introduced  only  towards  the  close  of  the  second 
century.  But  the  holy  bishop  expressly  states  the  reasons 
of  such  concealment,  and  they  are  such  as  to  apply  slight- 
ly indeed  to  the  circumstances  of  his  time,  but  with  over- 
whelming force  to  the  adjuncts  of  the  primitive  Church. 
St.  Cyril  wrote  at  a time  when  Christianity  was  compara- 
tively triumphant,  while  Paganism  was  relegated  to  the 
nooks  of  the  empire.  People  were  better  instructed  as  to 
truth  than  they  were  in  the  days  when  a monument  was 
erected  in  Portugal,  thanking  Nero  “ for  having  purged 
the  province  of  robbers  and  of  those  who  were  teaching 
the  human  race  a new  superstition.”  A Tacitus  could 
not  at  that  time  accuse  the  followers  of  the  Lamb  of  God 
of  cherishing  an  insatiable  hatred  against  humanity  (1), 

(1)  Annab i,  b.  15,  c.  44. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  SECRET. 


101 


nor  would  a Suetonius  have  numbered  among  the  meritor- 
ious works  of  a sovereign,  the  persecution  of  Christians  as  a 
superstitious  and  malefic  sect”  (1).  There  was  then  compara- 
tively little  reason  for  a continuance  of  the  Secret  Discipline 
in  the  time  of  St.  Cyril,  and  it  was  probably  kept  in  force 
because  of  the  conservative  instincts  of  the  Church  which 
render  her  slow  to  change  without  necessity,  and  because 
of  the  deep  impression  produced  upon  her  catechumens  by 
the  practised  reticence.  We  must  in  conclusion  suppose 
that,  if  the  system  was  carried  out  when  there  was  no 
Apparent  necessity  for  it,  it  was  obligatory  when  both 
moral  and  physical  circumstances  would  have  prompted  its 
adoption.  The  saintly  and  eloquent  prelate  of  Milan,  Am* 

brose,  (340 397)  tells  us,  in  his  twentieth  epistle,  to  hia 

sister,  that  he  was  accustomed  to  dismiss  the  catechumens, 
and  to  then  explain  the  Creed  to  the  competent. 

As  for  a reticence  in  regard  to  the  Eucharistic  doctrine, 
we  find  an  argument  for  it  in  an  epistle  of  Pope  St.  Julius 
L,  who  was  elected  in  337.  In  his  letter  to  the  Eusebians,  he 
gravely  rebukes  them  for  having  spoken  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  in  the  presence  of  Jews  and  Pagans.  His  words 
are  : “Before  the  prefect  and  his  followers,  and  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Jews  and  Pagans,  a question  was  put,  concerning 
the  chalice  and  the  table.  This  would  have  been  incredible, 
had  it  not  been  proved  by  documents.  That  which  caused  us 
to  wonder,  will,  I think,  produce  the  same  effect  upon  you : 
that  a question  upon  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  . . . be- 
fore an  outside  judge  (2),  in  the  presence  of  catechumens, 
and  what  was  more  unworthy,  before  Pagans  and  Jews.  . . . 
was  held.” 

St.  Augustine  tells  us  (3),  that  in  his  day,  if  catechumens 
were  asked  if  they  were  fed  with  the  Body  of  Christ  and  if 
they  drank  His  Blood,  they  would  not  know  what  was  meant 
by  the  question ; which  certainly  shows  that  at  that  time  the 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  was  limited  to  the  baptized, 
for  whatever  interpretation  Protestants  may  give  to  that 
•doctrine,  they  must  admit  that  when  the  holy  bishop  of 
Hippo  uses  the  phrase  above  given,  he  alludes  to  the  Holy 

(1)  Life  of  Nero , c.  16.  (2)  (3)  Tract  11th  on  John , No.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


102 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Communion,  understood  in  some  way  or  another.  Thus 
speaks  St.  Augustine  : “ If  we  ask  a catechumen,  ‘ Dost  thou 
believe  in  Christ?’  he  will  answer  ‘ I believe,’  and  will  sign 
himself.  Now  he  carries  on  his  forehead  the  cross  of  his 
Lord,  and  is  not  ashamed  of  it — behold  he  believes  in  His 
name.  If  then  we  ask  him,  ‘Dost  thou  eat  the  Flesh  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  dost  thou  drink  His  Blood  ? ’ he  knows 
not  what  we  say,  for  Jesus  has  not  given  Himself  to  him.” 

Before  demonstrating  the  usefulness  of  the  Discipline  of 
the  Secret,  we  must  remark  that  the  existence  of  this  system 
does  not  at  all  weaken  the  argument  for  the  divinity  of 
Christianity,  which  is  drawn  from  the  difficulties  attending 
its  propagation.  One  of  the  greatest  of  these  difficulties  is 
formed  by  the  dogmas  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Eucharist — 
the  one  so  imperative  in  its  demands  upon  faith,  and  in  its 
apparent  contradictions  of  sense ; and  the  other  so  appar- 
ently antagonistic  to  the  fundamental  idea  of  Divine  Unity, 
and  so  incomprehensible  in  its  presentation  of  the  personal 
relations  in  the  Divinity.  It  may  seem  that  if  these  great 
obstacles  to  conversion  were  removed  from  sight,  there  would 
be  nothing  so  wonderful  in  the  quick  propagation  of  the  faith, 
as  to  necessitate  the  supposition  of  a divine  intervention 
as  a means  of  accounting  for  it.  But  we  must  remember 
that  these  doctrines  wer  e kept  hidden  only  for  a time,  and 
then,  wdth  their  presentation  to  the  neophyte,  the  difficulties 
in  question  would  arise.  And  there  were  other  doctrines 
and  duties  which  were  inculcated  at  once,  and  which  of 
themselves  were  well  calculated  to  give  birth  to  difficulty. 
Such  were  the  necessity  of  curbing  the  depraved  instincts  of 
unbridled  passion,  and  the  many  logical  consequences  of 
such  restraint.  Then,  above  all,  there  was  the  law  of  divine 
charity,  with  its  manifold  permeations  through  the  chain  of 
human  obligations ; and  to  this  law,  unless  enlightened 
and  strengthened  by  divine  grace,  no  self-sufficient  Pagan 
would  have  bent  his  stubborn  neck. 

And  now  for  the  usefulness  of  the  Secret  Discipline. 
But  little  need  be  said  on  this  point,  as  from  the  preced- 
ing remarks  sufficient  may  be  gathered  to  show  that  the 
Church  displayed  no  puerility  in  the  premises.  As  for  the 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  SECRET. 


103 


charges  of  inhumanity,  we  fail  to  see  how  the  most  extrava- 
gant hyper-criticism  can  discover  any  foundation  for  it.  And 
where  was  the  silliness  in  preparing  a weak  mind  for  the  re- 
ception of  difficult  truth  ? Is  the  physician  silly  who,  though 
he  knows  his  patient  to  be  in  need  of  nourishment,  causes 
him  to  abstain  from  the  more  solid  food  until  his  stomach  is 
in  a condition  to  bear  it?  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (1)  illus- 
trates the  economy  of  the  Church  in  these  words,  When 
the  instruction  is  delivered,  if  a catechumen  asks  you  what 
the  teachers  have  been  saying,  answer  him  not,  for  we  have 
taught  thee  a mystery  and  the  hope  of  the  world  to  come. 
Keep  the  secret  for  Him  who  will  give  the  reward.  Let  no 
one  perchance  say  to  thee/  what  harm  will  there  bo  if  I al- 
so learn  ? * Sick  persons  often  ask  for  wine,  and  if  it  is  un- 
seasonably given  them,  it  produces  frenzy.  Then  two  evils 
arise — the  patient  dies,  and  the  physician  is  blamed.  So 
it  happens  if  a catechumen  learns  a mystery  from  a believer ; 
for  the  catechumen  suffers  from  frenzy.  He  understands 
not  what  he  hears,  disparages  the  whole  matter,  and  receives 
it  with  sneers  ; at  the  same  time  the  believer  is  condemned 
as  a traitor/’  St.  Augustine  (2)  assigns  another  motive  for 
this  treatment  of  postulants.  The  Church,  he  supposes, 
wished  to  inflame  their  zeal  of  knowledge,  to  excite  them  to 
a desire  of  receiving  baptism,  by  presenting  to  them  that 
sacrament  as  a portal,  through  'which  alone  they  could  pass 
into  the  >v<* ted  regions  of  mystery. 

And  :>  *'\-  we  approach  the  real  centre  of  interest  excit- 
ed bv  ’/;  • mcient  Discipline  of  the  Secret.  Protestant 
critics  w ild  scarcely  have  tried  to  disprove  its  existence, 
and  tha»  ding,  to  discredit  its  Apostolic  origin,  had  they 
not  dis  - • ,r»nl  in  it  a most  convincing  proof  of  the  anti- 
quity < ' Catholic  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  And 

c-rtiv :.v  ‘ Eucharistic  theories  of  Calvin,  Zwingle,  <fce., 

could  * - oduce  little  impression  upon  men  wlio  saw,  in 

the  : • of  the  first  Christian  centuries,  undoubted 

evide  i«  . t their  ancestors  in  the  faith  believed  the  Bless- 
ed Saci  fit  to  be  precisely  that  which  it  was  held  to  be 
by  the  < dient  children  of  Leo  X.;  namely,  truly  and  in- 

„ Pr.i-t'fl..  Vr.  12.  <2>  Tract  T4J  on  John. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


104 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


deed  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  present  therein* 
not  in  any  figurative  or  spiritual  manner,  but  in  reality,  and 
by  a Transubstantiation  of  the  elements.  Besides  the  tes- 
timonies we  have  adduced  to  show  the  care  exercised  by 
the  Church  of  the  first  centuries  in  shielding  the  dignity  of 
the  mysteries,  not  only  from  any  approach  of  Jews  and 
Pagans,  but  even  of  her  own  postulants,  we  might  fortify 
our  position  by  quotations  from  Athenagoras,  Minucius  Fe- 
lix, the  author  of  the  Recognitions  attributed  to  Pope  St.  Cle- 
ment, and  many  others,  but  enough  has  been  brought  forth 
to  convince  a candid  mind  that  the  diligence  displayed 
would  have  had  no  reason  of  existence  had  the  early  Chris- 
tians regarded  the  consecrated  elements  as  being  still  in 
substance  mere  bread  and  wine.  On  the  contrary,  in  the 
supposition  that  the  Catholic  position  is  correct,  we  at  once 
perceive  a reasonableness  in  the  Arcanum.  The  mystery 
was  sublime,  to  a degree  beyond  any  conception  of  the  human 
imagination  ; the  minds  of  the  catechumens  were  as  yet 
“ of  the  earth,  earthy”  and  comparatively  imbecile  as  to  the 
things  of  God ; well  might  the  Church  refuse  to  lift  the  veil 
of  the  Secret  until  the  weak  candidate  had  made  progress 
in  humility,  and  until  he  had  become  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  divine  revelation  ; well  might  she  prefer  to  first 
familiarize  the  postulant  with  the  prodigies  performed  by 
Christ  and  His  saints,  ere  she  demanded  from  him  the  pros- 
tration of  his  intellect,  and  the  abdication  of  liis  senses  in 
so  recondite  and  tremendous  a dogma.  But  why  should 
she  consult  the  imbecility  of  the  human  mind,  why  respect 
so  assiduously  the  dignity  of  the  mysteries,  if  Christ  were 
only  figuratively  present,  if  that  dignity  were  such  as  arose 
only  from  bread  and  wine  ? Had  the  Eucharistic  teaching  of 
the  Church  been  of  so  easy  an  interpretation  as  the  Pro- 
testant theory  would  imply,  then  indeed  the  drawing  over 
it  a mystic  veil  would  have  been  silly  and  puerile.  Nay, 
when  we  reflect  upon  the  terrible  calumnies  which  the 
Pagans  put  forth  as  to  the  cannibalistic  practices  of  the 
Christians  in  their  secret  assemblies,  we  must  say  that  it 
would  have  been  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Church  to  lift 
a curtain,  for  which  there  was  no  necessity. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CHAPTER  VIIL 


*jflE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 

In  she  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  there  was  a 
great  difference  Among  the  churches,  as  to  the  time  for  the 
celebration  of  Easter.  Those  of  Asia  Minor,  following,  they 
said,  the  instructions  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist  and  St. 
Philip,  celebrated  the  Va^ch,  as  did  the  Jews,  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  March  moon ; while  the  other  churches, 
following  that  of  Rome,  and  relying  upon  the  authority  of 
Sts.  Peter  and  Paul,  postponed  the  celebration  until  the 
following  Sunday.  Imitating  the  example  of  our  Lord,  the 
Asiatics  ate  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth 
day ; some  of  them  then  terminated  the  lenten  fast,  others 
observed  it  for  two  days  more.  As  with  us  now,  so  then, 
the  Resurrection  was  celebrated  by  the  Asiatics  on  the  third 
day  after  the  paschal  meal ; hence,  when  the  fourteenth  day 
fell  at  any  other  time  than  Thursday,  thu  feast  of  the  Res- 
urrection could  not  be  kept  on  the  proper  day,  Sunday.  But 
outside  of  Asia  Minor,  the  paschal  lamb  was  not  eaten  until 
the  night  of  Saturday,  and  the  Easter  was  always  kept  on  a 
Sunday  (1).  This  diversity  of  rite  caused  no  little  scandal, 
and  might  well  be  regarded  by  the  infidels  as  indicative  of 
a kind  of  schism.  It  certainly  appeared  strange  that  one 
church  should  be  buried  in  grief  and  wrapped  in  mourning, 
while  another  was  filled  with  joy.  And  this  diversity  bore 
its  fruit  through  the  entire  ecclesiastical  year,  for  upon  the 
date  of  Easter  depended  the  dates  of  all  the  movable  feasts. 
It  is  not  strange,  then,  that  there  arose  a controversy,  which, 
owing  to  the  unwillingness  of  Rome  to  enforce  her  discipline, 
where  faith  was  not  concerned,  and  where  greater  evils  were 
to  be  apprehended,  was  not  ended  until  the  time  of  the  Coun- 

(1)  When  it  is  said  that  the  Asiatics  kept  the  Parch  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  March  moon, 
it  (snot  meant  that  on  that  day  they  celebrated  the  Resurrection,  but  that  then  they  ate  the 
paschal  lamb.  This  has  been  proved  by  the  erudite  Jesuit,  Daniel,  in  an  apposite  disser- 
tation, and  by  Moshkim,  Hint.,  2d  cent.,  871. 

105 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


106 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


-cil  of  Nice  ; indeed,  among  the  Britons  and  Scots,  the  sev- 
•enth  century  had  closed  before  the  Roman  discipline  was 
thoroughly  adopted.  The  dispute  commenced  about  the 
year  160,  when  St.  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  came  to 
Rome  and  consulted  with  Pope  Anicetus  on  the  matter. 
Eusebiu  « tells  us  (1)  that,  “ while  Anicetus  governed  the 
Roman  church,  Irenaeus  commemorates  that  Polycarp,  who 
was  yet  alive,  came  to  Rome,  and  had  a colloquy  with 
Anicetus  about  the  controversy  as  to  what  day  the  Pasch 
Should  be  celebrated.”  But  the  Pontiff  could  not  prevail 
upon  Polycarp  to  give  up  what  was  already  an  old  custom. 
However,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Irenaeus  (2),  “they  parted 
in  peace,  and  all  the  churches,  those  who  kept  the  Pasch  on 
the  fourteenth  day,  and  those  who  did  not,  continued  to  enjoy 
tranquillity  among  themselves.'’  But  about  the  year  194, 
in  the  Pontificate  of  Victor,  the  dispute  became  more  vivid. 
The  Montanists  were  asserting  (and  with  them  a Roman 
priest,  named  Blastus)  that  Christians  are  obliged,  by  divine 
law,  to  celebrate  the  Pasch  with  the  Jews,  and  the  Pontiff 
feared  that  any  further  delay  in  settling  the  controversy 
would  result  in  the  Asiatics  becoming  infected  with  this 
error.  Accordingly  he  ordered  the  metropolitans,  through- 
out the  Church,  to  hold  synods  in  their  respective  provinces, 
to  consult  as  to  the  Paschal  discipline,  and  to  report  to  the 
Holy  See  their  conclusions.  Among  the  letters  which  came 
to  Rome  in  answer  to  the  Pontifical  command,  were  some 
from  the  bishops  of  Palestine,  declaring  that  the  Asiatic 
abuse  was  now  entrenching  upon  matters  of  faith.  This 
made  Pope  Victor  the  more  determined,  and  he  wrote  to 
Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  commanding  him  to  convoke 
a synod  of  all  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor,  and  communicate 
to  them  the  Pontifical  resolve  to  excommunicate  all  who 
would  continue  to  keep  the  Pasch  on  the  fourteenth  day. 
Eusebius  (3)  tells  us  the  result.  “ For  this  reason  are  collect- 
ed the  bishops  in  synods  and  assemblies  ; and  all  are  of  one 
mind,  issuing  ecclesiastical  decrees  to  all  the  churches,  to 
the  effect  that  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  be  celebrated 

(1)  History , L.  4,  c.  13.  (2)  Epist . to  Pope  Victor , in  Euskbius,  b,  5,  c.  34. 

(3)  History , b.  5,  c.  23. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


107 


only  on  Sunday.  We  have  even  now  the  rescript  of  those 
who  met  for  this  reason  in  Palestine,  over  whom  presided 
Tlieophilus  of  Caesarea,  and  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
At  Rome  also  a synod  was  held  under  the  presidency  of  Vic- 
tor. And  another,  of  the  bishops  of  Pontus,  under  the  ven- 
erable Palma.  Also,  one  ol  the  dioceses  of  Gaul,  which 
Irenaeus  governed.  And  another,  of  the  prelates  of  Isrhoena, 
and  the  cities  therein ; especially  one  of  Branchillus, 
bishop  of  Corinth.  And  all  of  these  issue  the  same  decree. 
However,  over  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor,  who  declared  that 
they  must  cling  to  the  custom  handed  down  to  them  of  old, 
presided  Poly  crates,  who,  in  a letter  sent  to  Victor  and  the 
Roman  Church,  explains  the  tradition  observed  down  to  his 
time,  in  these  words  : ‘We  celebrate  the  Paschal  day  invio- 
late ; great  luminaries  have  died  in  Asia — Philip,  one  ot  the 
twelve  Apostles,  and  John,  who  reclined  on  the  breast  of  the 
Lord,  Polycarp,  <fcc. — these  all  observed  the  day  of  Pasch 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  according  to  the  Gospel, 
preserving  the  rule  of  faith  in  everything.’  ” The  bishops 
of  Asia  Minor  gained  their  point,  for,  as  we  shall  see,  Pope 
Victor  did  not  carry  out  his  threat  of  excommunication. 
The  affair  remained  as  a bone  of  contention,  though  it  never 
culminated  into  anything  like  schism,  until  the  year  325, 
when  the  first  general  Council  of  Nice  decided  that  through- 
out the  world,  the  feast  of  Easter  should  be  celebrated  on 
the  Sunday  following  the  fourteenth  moon,  after  the  vernal 
equinox.  The  Britons  and  Scots,  from  the  year  566,  frr 
about  a century,  labored  under  an  error  in  this  matter  which 
was  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  of  which  we  shall  speak  at 
the  close  of  the  chapter. 

Concerning  the  action  of  Pope  Victor  in  this  Paschal 
controversy,  there  are  several  points  to  be  elucidated. 
Learned  men  have  differed  as  to  whether  Pope  Victor  really 
excommunicated  the  Asiatics.  Protestants  have  asserted 
that  he  did  fulminate  his  censure,  but  that  the  prelates 
laughed  at  it ; the  best  of  Catholic  critics  generally  hold 
that  the  Pontiff  was  content  with  a threat ; that  such  was 
the  sense  of  the  phrase  used  by  Eusebius,  “ he  tried  to  cut 
them  off  from  the  community  of  the  Church  (1).M  Mosheim 

mibU  b.  5,  c.  S4. 


X 


Digitized  by  AjOOQle 


108 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


(1),  Potter  (2),  and  Le  Clerc  (3)  agree  in  holding  that  at  that 
time  the  Roman  Pontiff  had  no  jurisdiction  over  Asia,  and 
that  the  action  of  Victor  was  one  of  the  first  instances  of  Papal 
attempts  at  usurpation.  The  limits  of  our  work  do  not 
permit  of  any  extended  defence  of  Pope  Victor,  nor,  indeed, 
does  his  conduct,  so  far  as  history  presents  it,  need  any  pa- 
tronage. We  shall  merely  observe  that  he  did  not  act  mere- 
ly upon  his  own  impulse  ; long  before  he  proceeded  against 
the  Asiatics,  he  took  the  opinions  of  the  bishops  of  Pales- 
tine, Pontus,  Mesopotamia,  Corinth,  and  Gaul ; when  he 
finally  did  act,  he  spoke  at  the  head  of  a Roman  synod. 
Neither  St.  Irenaeus  nor  Polycrates  accuse  the  Pontiff  of 
arrogating  to  himself  any  undue  authority,  and  one  great 
proof  that  his  action  was  justifiable,  is  found  in  its  confir- 
mation by  the  Council  of  Nice.  St.  Irenaeus  certainly  “ de- 
cently admonished”  Victor,  as  Eusebius  has  it,  lest  he 
should  cut  off  from  communion  so  many  bishops,  but  he 
agreed  as  to  the  Paschal  decree.  Polycrates  certainly  re- 
sisted the  Pontiff ; and  there  have  ever  been,  are,  and  ever 
will  be,  men  to  do  likewise  ; but  that  is  no  argument  against 
the  legitimacy  of  the  Papal  authority.  We  now  proceed  to 
the  solution  of  various  questions  arising  from  the  Paschal 
controversy. 

Did  this  controversy  regard  a matter  of  faith,  or  one  of 
discipline  ? We  must  reply  that  it  was  a dispute  as  to  a 
mere  disciplinary  matter,  although,  at  the  time  that  Pope 
Victor  took  his  decisive  stand,  the  question  bade  fair  to  yet 
encroach  upon  the  domain  of  faith.  Certainly  there  was  in 
the  Church  a difference  of  opinion,  and  a difference  of  prac- 
tice, as  to  the  Paschal  time,  and  that  variety  had  been  ex- 
pressly tolerated  by  the  Holy  See.  In  matters  of  faith, 
however,  there  can  be  no  room  for  doubt,  no  scope  for  va- 
riety. Therefore,  Pope  Victor,  Irenaeus,  Poly  crates  and 
all  those  connected  with  the  controversy,  must  have  looked 
upon  it  as  one  of  discipline.  Had  it  been  regarded  by  St. 
Irenaeus  as  a question  of  faith,  he  would  not  have  de- 
terred the  Pontiff  from  anathematizing  the  recusants.  Nor 

(1)  Christianity  before  Constantine , 2d  cent..  8 72.  (2)  Spirit  ofJthe  Ghurch^  v.  SL 

(8)  History , years  194  and  196. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


109 


can  it  be  urged  that  the  rebellious  in  this  matter  were  after- 
wards condemned  as  heretics,  and  styled  Quatuordecimani > 
or  “ devotees  of  the  fourteenth,”  and  that  as  such  they  are 
numbered  among  heretics  by  Sts.  Epiphanius  and  Augus- 
tine, and  by  Theodoret.  They  were  not  condemned  as  here- 
tics before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  then  it  was  because 
they  were  reviving,  so  far  as  in  them  lay,  the  Mosaic  Law, 
by  joining  its  observances  to  the  Gospel ; they  were  not 
condemned  as  heretics,  merely  because  they  kept  the  Pasch  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  March  moon.  The  Church  looked 
upon  them  as  heretics  because,  as  St.  Epiphanius  says  (1), 
“ They  taught  certain  things  which  are  not  consonant  with 
her  institutions  and  doctrine,  for  they  clung  to  Jewish  fa- 
bles.” Before  the  Council  of  Nice,  one  could  apply  to  the 
Asiatics  of  this  question  the  words  which  St.  Augustine 
afterwards  applied  to  the  Donatists,  in  the  matter  of  rebap- 
tizing heretics  (2),  “ The  obscurity  of  this  opinion  forced 
great  men,  and  bishops  endowed  with  great  charity,  so  to 
contend  among  themselves,  communion  unbroken,  that  for 
a long  time  synods  established  a diversity  of  statutes  in 
their  respective  regions,  until  at  last  a General  Council,  re- 
moving all  doubt,  decided  what  was,  with  safetv,  to  be 
held.” 

Now  we  come  to  the  question  whether  Pope  Victor  re- 
duced to  action  his  threat  to  excommunicate  the  recusant  pre- 
lates of  Asia  Minor.  We  cannot  arrive  at  certainty  in  this 
matter,  but  the  probabilities  would  seem  to  demand  a neg- 
ative response.  Eusebius  (3)  says,  “Influenced  by  these 
things,  Victor,  wTho  then  governed  the  Roman  Church,  tried 
to  cut  off  from  the  common  unity  of  the  Church  all  the 
churches  of  Asia  and  other  neighboring  ones,  as  being  of 
another  faith  and  opinion,  and  inveighed  strongly  against 
them  by  letter ; and  he  decreed  that  all  the  brethren  inhab- 
iting that  region  should  be  entirely  excluded  from  commun- 
ion.” We  gather  from  these  words  that  the  mind  of  the 
Pontiff  was  resolved  upon  a future  excommunication,  but 
from  the  next  words  of  th6  historian  it  seems  plain  that  the 

(1)  Heresies, 50.  (2)  On  Baptism , against  the  Donatists , b.  7,  c.  7. 

(3)  History , b.  5,  c.  24. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


110  STUDIES  . IN,. CHURCH  HISTORY. 

sentence  was  never  pronounced.  “ But  this  did  not  please 
the  other  bishops.  They  therefore  earnestly  exhorted  him 
to  the  contrary,  that  he  might  keep  a diligent  care  for  peace, 
charity,  and  concord  with  his  neighbors.  Their  words, 
sharply  and  bitterly  reproaching  Victor,  are  yet  extant 
Among  them,  Irenaeus,  though  he  wrote  in  the  name  of  the 
Gallic  brethren  whom  he  governed,  declaring  indeed  that  the 
feast  of  the  Lord’s  Resurrection  should  be  kept  only  on 
Sunday,  nevertheless  admonished  Victor  not  to  cut  off  from 
the  body  of  the  Church  of  Christ  so  many  churches  because 
of  an  observance  of  an  ancient  tradition  received  among 
them.”  It  is  not  probable  that  St.  Irenaeus  would  have 
so  spoken,  had  the  anathema  been  already  proclaimed.  Euse- 
bius gives  a fragment  of  the  letter  of  Irenaeus  (1),  in  which 
the  saint  quotes  the  course  pursued  by  the  predecessors 
of  Victor,  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  Pontiff  conclud- 
ed to  follow  in  the  path  they  had  marked  out.  It  is  object- 
ed that  as  Pope  Victor  excommunicated  the  Roman  priest 
Blastus  for  celebrating  the  Pasch  on  the  fourteenth  day,  so 
it  is  not  probable  that  he  made  an  exception  in  favor  of  the 
Asiatics.  But  it  should  be  noted  that  Blastus  was  bound  to 
follow  the  discipline  of  his  diocese  ; by  abandoning  it,  he 
subjected  himself  to  censure.  Again,  Blastus  wras  not  an- 
athematized because  of  his  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  the 
Pasch,  but  on  account  of  his  conjunction  of  Mosaicism  with 
Christianity  (2),  and  because  he  had  become  a Valentinian 
(3).  There  is  a passage  in  the  works  of  St.  Epiphanius  (4),  in 
which  it  is  asserted  tha  t the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches 
were  so  divided  on  this  question,  as  to  cease  from  any  paci- 
fic interchange  of  letters,  but  this  would  only  indicate  a 
bitter  feeling,  not  necessarily  a rupture  of  communion.  #So- 
zomenus  was  well  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  St.  Epi- 
phanius, and  yet  he  tells  us  (5),  ‘‘  I think  that  the  contro- 
versy on  this  matter  was  most  wisely  settled  by  Victor,  then 
bishop  of  Rome,  and  by  Poly  carp  of  Smyrna.  For  when  the 
priests  of  the  West  deemed  that  the  tradition  of  Peter  and 
Paul  was  not  to  be  contemned,  and  the  Asiatics  declared 

*1)  Ibid r.  25.  (2)  See  the  Supplement  to  TcrtuUian's  Prescription*,  c.  58. 

(5)  Thkodorkt,  Fable*,  b.  1,  r.  23.  (4)  Heretic*,  70.  (5)  History , b.  7,  c.  19. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  EASTER  CON  TROVERSY. 


Ill 


that  they  followed  John,  a common  decree  was  sanctioned, 
whereby,  each  one  celebrating  the  feast  (as  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  do),  they  did  not  dissolve  the  mutual  com- 
munion. For  they  considered  it  frivolous,  and  rightly,  to 
segregate,  for  the  sake  of  a custom,  those  who  agreed  on  the 
principal  points  of  religion.’*  With  regard  to  this  question 
of  Pope  Victor’s  excommunication  of  the  Asiatics,  several 
erudite  writers,  men  of  excellent  judgment  in  matters  cf 
criticism,  have  held  that  the  sentence  was  pronounced  (1). 
Their  chief  arguments  are  as  follows  : First,  they  insist 

upon  the  positive  language  of  Eusebius,  and  hold  that  it 
implies  far  more  than  a mere  threat  upon  the  part  of  the 
Pontiff.  One  passage  of  the  historian  is  certainly  very  fa- 
vorable  to  their  theory  (2).  “ Having  sent  letters  to  all  the 

brethren  who  were  there  (Asia),  he  proscribed  them,  and  pro- 
nounced thementirely  foreign  from  the  unity  of  the  Church.” 
As  for  the  intercession  of  St.  Irenaeus,  that  occurred,  say 
some,  between  the  utterance  of  the  threat  and  the  ful- 
mination  of  the  sentence  ; it  is  believed  by  Tillemonjb  to 
have  been  made  after  the  promulgation  of  the  excommuni- 
cation, ami  to  have  been  a prayer  for  its  abrogation.  These 
authors  rely  considerably  on  the  testimony  of  the  historian 
Socrates  (3),  which  is  strong  in  their  favor.  When  they  are 
told  that  this  writer’s  testimony  is  of  dubious  value  in  the 
premises,  since,  as  a Novatiau,  it  was  his  interest  to  de- 
preciate Pope  Victor,  and  since,  also,  whenever  he  is  act- 
uated by  party  spirit,  lie  is  an  unmitigated  liar  (4),  they 
answer  that  Socrates  is  not  unsupported.  Baronio  and 
Scheelestrate  hold  that  Pope  Victor  excommunicated  the 
Asiatics  because  they  contended  that  the  Pascli  should 
necessarily  be  celebrated  on  the  fourteenth  day  ; to 

(1)  Scheelkstrate  : A ntUpiitiex of  the  Church,  p.2.  Pagi  ; on  Baronio,  year  196.  Tili.k- 
mont;  rot.  3.  Massikt,  Dim*  i t.  prarc.  on  Si.  iiuuiem . Roncaglia,  note  to  AIcjui.- 
drc'x  Disxcrt.  V.  in  2nd  Cent. 

{2)  Jlixtoi'y,  b.  5,  e.  24. 

(3)  IUxtory , h.  5 r.  21. 

(4)  The  following  lnstanc«?s  of  mendacity  on  the  part  of  Socrates  are  noted  by  Alexandre. 
In  the  cited  chupter.be  asserts  that  the  Roman  Church  observes  only  three  weeks  of  Lent, 
while  bis  contemporary,  Pojie  st.  Leo,  Is  a witness  (Sermon  4,  on  Lent)  to  the  but  that 
throughout  the  West,  the  full  Lenten  fast  was  respected.  In  the  same  place  he  says  thut 
Rome  allowed  the  lenten  fast  to  tie  suspended  on  Saturday,  just  as  on  Sundays,  wld’e 
we  know  that  the  fast  was  unbroken,  from  Augustine’s  -fipixtle  to  Cnximuiux,  to. 
In  his  l took  (*,  chap.  3,  he  says  that  St.  John  Chrysostom  **  was  given  rather  to  auger,  than 
to  observance,”  that  in  his  conversations  he  was  ” insolent,”  and  (hat  he  was  justly  deposed 
“because  he  had  deprived  the  Noratlans  and  Quurtodeciinans  of  their  churches  ” 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


112 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTOllX. 


this  Roncaglia  sensibly  replies  that  if  they  had  gone 
so  far,  no  Catholic  would  have  communicated  with  them, 
even  before  the  sentence  of  the  Pontiff ; no  Ireuaeus  would 
have  interceded  for  them,  and  certainly  the  Pope  would  not 
have  restored  them  to  communion. 

The  Gallican  school,  now  happily  relegated  to  the  realms 
of  history,  was  fond  of  citing  this  controversy  on  the  Pasch 
as  furnishing  an  argument  against  Papal  infallibility. 
Had  the  Christians  of  those  days  believed  in  the  inerrability 
of  the  Pontifical  teachings,  neither  the  Asiatics  nor  St 
Irenaeus,  it  said,  would  have  acted  as  they  did.  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  throughout  the  whole  dispute  between  Victor 
and  the  Asiatics,  there  was  not  for  a moment  a question  of 
faith.  And  had  the  bishops  of  Asia  Minor  resisted  the 
Pontiff  because  they  thought  that  he  erred  in  a matter  of 
faith,  they  must  also  have  denied  the  infallibility  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church,  for  it  is  certain  that,  with  the  exception  of 
themselves,  the  whole  Church  held  that  the  Pasch  should  be 
celebrated  on  the  Sunday  following  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  March  moon. 

The  Council  of  Nice  finally  put  an  end  to  this  famous  dis- 
pute. In  the  Synodical  Epistle  to  the  church  of  Alexandria 
(l),the  fathers  say,  “As  for  our  unanimous  consent  as  to  the 
celebration  of  the  Paschal  Feast,  know  that  through  your 
prayers  the  controversy,  held  on  that  matter,  has  been  pru- 
dently and  conveniently  settled  ; so  that  all  the  brethren 
who  live  in  the  East,  and  who  hitherto  have  been  used  to 
imitate  the  custom  of  the  Jews  in  the  observance  of  that 
Feast,  will  hereafter  follow,  with  consenting  minds  as  to  its 
celebration,  us  Romans,  and  all  of  you,  who  have  from  the 
earliest  times  clung  to  our  method  of  keeping  it.”  In  the 
Epistle  sent  by  the  emperor  Constantine  to  all  the  churches, 
he  gives  the  following  reasons  why  the  fathers  of  Nice  is- 
sued  the  decree  (2):  “It  seemed  unworthy  that  we  should 
celebrate  that  most  holy  festival  with  a copy  of  the  J.  .vish 
rites  and  customs  (copying  those,  that  isj,  who  av-« 
ly  held  in  the  blind  error  of  their  souls  because  they  pollu- 
ted their  hands  with  a horrible  wickedness there  are 

(1)  Thkodoret;  History,  b.  1,  c.  2.  (2)  Ibid.,  c.  10. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


113 


those  who  celebrate  a second  Pasch  in  the  same  year.  And 
why  should  we  imitate  those,  who  are  certainly  afflicted 
with  the  malady  of  error  ? Those  who  celebrated  the  Pasch 
on  the  fourteenth  moon,  caring  nothing  for  the  equinox, 
sometimes  did  so  after  the  equinox,  sometimes  before  it, 
because  the  fourteenth  moon  rose  at  that  time.  And  it  is 
a great  shame  that  there  should  reign  dissension  in  regard 
to  so  solemn  a feast  of  our  religion  ; it  is  indecorous  that 
on  the  same  day  some  should  be  fasting,  and  some  ban- 
queting ; that  after  the  Pasch,  some  should  be  fasting  be- 
cause of  the  remission  of  their  sins,  and  others  be  yet  in 

the  prescribed  fasts I myself  thought  that  your 

Wisdom  would  easily  assent,  that  what  is  unanimously  ob- 
served in  the  city  of  Rome,  in  Italy,  in  all  Africa,  in  Egypt, 
Spain,  Gaul,  Britain,  Libya,  throughout  Greece,  in  the  As- 
iatic diocese,  in  Pontus  and  Cilicia,  should  be  willingly  ob- 
served by  you Since  things  are  so,  accept  this  decree 

as  a gift  of  God,  and  a command  truly  sent  down  from 
Heaven ; for  whatever  is  agreed  upon  in  the  holy  Councils  of 
the  bishops,  must  be  attributed  to  the  Divine  Will.’’  The 
reader  will  observe  that  Constantine  here  places  Britain 
among  the  countries  which  followed  the  Roman  tradition  as 
to  the  celebration  of  Easter.  This  fact  is  worthy  of  note, 
as  the  Centuriators  of  Magdeburg,  and  other  Protestant 
critics,  have  asserted  that  Britain  received  her  first  Chris- 
tian instruction,  not  from  Rome,  but  from  the  East.  Con- 
stantine was  born  and  bred  in  Britain  (1),  and  probably 
knew  of  what  he  was  talking.  H:ul  the  Britons  received 
their  religion  from  the  East,  it  is  improbable  that  they 
would  have  held  the  Roman  discipline  as  to  the  Pasch. 
This  remark  brings  us  to  a very  interesting  phase  of  the 
Paschal  controversy,  namely,  that  Ymh  was  presented  by 
the  British  Isles,  when,  for  more  t a century,  they  fol- 
lowed a custom,  in  this  matter,  pe  * • t > themselves. 

We  would  draw  the  reader’s  art  to  the  following 

rem  it*  ^ of  the  erudite  Dr  Moran,  'ibishop  of  Syd- 

ne}r  (2)  : “ 8ome  reader,  unacquaim  Ai  the  records  of 

' » Blent;  Fjcelca.  Hist,  of  the  A nates,  h.  t,  <\ 

• -/m.  Doctrines , and  Discipluic  of  the  1.  * / /r«*/»  Churrh . r 1. 


Digitized  by  ^.ooQle 


114 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Ireland  in  her  first  ages  of  faith,  may  be  surprised  at  see- 
ing Scotia  marked  by  St.  Prosper  as  the  field  of  Palladius’ 
apostolate.  However,  in  the  fifth  century  Ireland  was  the 
only  country  known  by  the  name  of  Scotia . This  was  at 
one  time  a matter  of  angry  discussion ; but  at  length  all 
controversy  has  ceased.  The  researches  of  the  Scottish 
antiquaries  themselves,  and  their  open  acknowledgment  of 
the  fallacy  of  the  opinion  which  referred  that  name  to 
modern  Scotland,  have  set  this  question  at  rest  for  ever. 
We  shall,  therefore,  on  this  head,  merely  remark  with  Dr. 
Todd,  that  ‘Whoever  reads  the  works  of  Bede  and  Adamnau, 
will  not  need  to  be  informed  that,  even  in  their  times, 
Scotia  meant  no  country  but  Ireland,  and  Scot#  no  people 
but  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland’  ”(1). 

The  Scots,  or,  to  use  the  more  modern  name,  the 
Irish,  received  the  Christian  faith  at  the  hands  of  St.  Pat- 
rick in  the  year  432.  The  Britons  may  have  received  some 
knowledge  of  the  faith  before  the  second  century,  but  pos- 
itive evidence  can  be  adduced  for  such  reception  only  in 
( the  Pontificate  of  Pope  Eleutherius  in  182.  The  British 
church  was  driven  to  the  mountains  of  Wales  by  the  Saxon 
conquest  in  454 ; the  conversion  of  the  Saxons  was  com- 
menced in  590,  and  consummated  in  about  eighty  years. 
The  Christians  of  Britain  and  Scotia  were  preserved  by  their 
isolated  position  from  the  heresies  which  agitated  the  East, 
and  with  the  exception  of  a short  inroad  from  Pelagianism, 
they  preserved  the  purity  of  the  faith.  But  the  Paschal 
controversy  was  destined  to  cause  trouble  in  both  coun- 
tries. At  the  Council  of  Nice  it  had  been  determined  that, 
since  the  dat  > of  Easter  depended  on  astronomical  obser- 
vations, and  the  Egyptians  excelled  in  such,  the  patriarch 
of  Alexandria  should  annually  communicate  to  the  Roman 
See  the  proper  time,  to  be  made  known  to  the  distant  . 
churches.  But  again  disputes  arose,  for  the  Roman  and 
Alexandrian  methods  of  computation  were  different ; the 
cycle  of  Rome  contained  eighty-four  years,  that  of  Alexan- 
dria nineteen.  About  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  the 

(l)The  first  author  to  apply  tin*  name  Scotia  to  Scotland  was  Marianus  Scot  us,  who  died 
in  10SH.  The  olden  name  was  All>a,  also  Calcthmia.  The  llrst  Scotch  settlement  In  Cale-' 
rioma  was  made  from  limiter”  Siotio.  or  Hfltemla,  In  r.lW 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


115 


Holy  See  adopted  a new  cycle  of  ninety-five  years,  or  five 
Egyptian  cycles.  But  the  Britons  and  Scots,  almost  cut- 
off from  communication  with  Rome,  continued  the  ancient 
manner  of  calculation.  Originally,  then,  there  was  no  dif- 
ference between  the  Roman  Church,  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  British  and  Scotch  Christians  on  the  other,  with  regard 
to  the  Easter  question.  We  learn  from  Comm,  de  Rossi’s 
work  on  Roman  Inscriptions , that  at  the  Council  of  Arles 
(314),  where  the  cycle  of  eighty-four  years  was  adopted  for 
the  computation  of  the  Paschal  time,  there  were  British 
bishops  present,  and  “it  requires  little  sagacity  to  perceive 
that  these  prelates  received  their  cycle,  and  the  manner  of 
computing  Easter,  from  Pope  Sylvester,  and  the  corrections 
and  changes  which  were  subsequently  made  did  not  reach 
them,  as  they  were  so  much  separated  from  the  continent 

of  Europe  as  to  be  considered  at  the  end  of  the  earth 

Hence,  we  understand  the  origin  of  the  famous  controversies 
about  the  manner  of  keeping  Easter  in  the  British  Church- 
es ; thus  the  fable  of  the  Eastern  origin  of  these  churches, 
and  of  their  peculiar  Paschal  rite,  is  exploded,  and  the 
union  of  the  ancient  British  church  with  that  of  Rome  is 
proved  by  a new  argument.”  In  the  year  630,  the  bishops 
of  Munster  and  Leinster  celebrated  a synod  at  Magh-lene 
to  promote  a settlement  of  the  controversy.  One  of  its  most 
distinguished  members  was  St.  Cummian.  He  was  deeply 
attached  to  the  old  traditions,  and  fully  appreciated  tho 
fact  that  the  Irish  Easter  method  had  been  derived  from 
St.  Patrick.  We  shall  allow  him  to  speak  his  own  senti- 
ments, for  they  serve  to  confute  those  who  hold  that  the 
early  Irish  were  not  united  with  Rome.  “‘An  old  au- 
thority,’ says  Jerome,  ‘ rises  up  against  me.  In  the  mean- 
time, I cry  out,  whosoever  is  joined  to  the  chair  of  St. 
Peter,  that  man  is  mine.'  What  more?  I turn  to  the 
words  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  Pope  Gregory,  gifted  with  the 
appellation  of  the  Golden  Mouth,  who,  though  he  wrote 
after  all,  is  deservedly  preferred  before  all ; and  I find  him 
thus  writing  on  this  passage  of  Job — Gold  hath  a place 
where  it  is  melted,  etc.  ‘ The  gold  is  the  great  body  of  the 
saints  ; the  place  of  melting  is  the  unity  of  the  Church  ; the 


Digitized  by  y.ooQie 


116 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


fire  the  sufferings  of  martyrdom  ; he,  therefore,  who  is 
tried  by  fire,  and  is  outside  of  the  Church,  may  be  melted, 
but  cannot  be  cleansed.’  What  can  be  deemed  more  injur- 
ious to  Mother  Church  than  to  say,  Rome  errs,  Jerusalem 
errs,  Alexandria  errs,  Antioch  errs,  the  whole  world  is  in 
-error  ; only  the  Scots  and  Britons  know  what  ia  right  ?.  . . . 
Having,  therefore,  studied  the  matter  for  a year,  I asked 
my  fathers  to  declare  to  me,  my  elders  to  tell  me  (the  suc- 
cessors, forsooth,  of  our  first  holy  fathers,  bishop  Ailbe, 
Kieran  of  Clonmacnoise,  Brendan,  Nessan,  Lugid)  what  they 
thought  of  our  being  separated  from  the  above-mentioned 
Apostolic  sees.  And  having  met  all  together  in  the  plain 
of  Magh-lene,  some  in  person,  some  by  legates  sent  in  their 
stead,  they  decreed  that  ‘our  predecessors,  through  meet 
witnesses,  of  whom  some  are  yet  living,  while  others  sleep  in 
peace,  commanded  us  to  humbly  receive,  without  hesita- 
tion, whatever  things  were  better  and  more  estimable, 
whensoever  they  were  approved  of  by  the  source  of  our 
baptism  and  wisdom,  and  brought  to  us  from  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord.’  Afterwards  they,  of  one  accord, 
set  forth  to  us,  according  to  custom,  a mandate  upon  this 
matter,  to  keep  Easter,  the  coming  year,  in  unison  with  the 
whole  Church”  (1).  In  accordance  with  the  decree  men- 
tioned by  St.  Cummian,  legates  were  sent  to  Rome.  They 
returned  in  633  with  the  news  that  their  Easter  method 
was  wrong.  In  the  following  year,  a letter  arrived  from 
Pope  Honorius.  Yen.  Bede  tells  us  (2),  “Pope  Honoriussent 
letters  to  the  Irish  people,  whom  he  found  to  err  in  the 
calculation  of  the  Easter  time,  and  he  exhorted  them  not  to 
regard  their  own  small  population,  dwelling  at  the  extreme 
end  of  the  inhabited  earth,  as  wiser  than  the  churches  of 
Christ,  both  ancient  and  modern,  throughout  the  world ; 
and  not  to  persist  in  keeping  a Pasch  different  from  their 
Pascli.  and  opposed  by  the  Easter  computations  and 
synodical  decrees  of  the  bishops  of  the  entire  world.”  This 
• read  in  the  synod  of  Lethglin  in  G35,  and  it 
settled  forever  the  Paschal  controversy  in  the  south  of  Ire- 

(1)  Letter  to  Seqienus,  Abbot  of  Hy.  See  also  Irish  Glosses  by  Stokes. 

(2)  Histot'y^  b.  2,  c.  IV. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


llY 


land.  In  the  north,  however,  the  old  state  of  affairs  lasted 
some  time  longer.  The  archbishop  of  Armagh  wrote  to 
Pope  Severinus  in  640,  but  the  letter  arrived  after  that 
Pontiff’s  death.  The  Roman  clergy  replied,  censuring  the 
Quartodecimans,  but  as  t be  Irish  protested  their  rite  was  sim- 
ply tha  ancient  rite  of  Rome,  and  that  they  also  opposed 
the  Quartodecimans,  they  believed  themselves  justified  in 
holding  on  their  course.  As  Dr.  Moran  says  (1),  The 
Roman  Church  was  subsequently  too  much  distracted  by 
other  cares,  and  we  find  no  decision  on  record  regarding 
the  Paschal  controversy  which  was  agitated  in  our  island  ” 

The  merit  of  putting  an  end  to  this  dispute  among  the 
Saxons  belongs  to  King  Os  win.  Among  the  many  Irish 
monasteries  celebrated,  during  the  sixth  and  seventh  cen- 
turies, as  centres  of  learning,  none  were  more  distinguished 
than  those  of  Hy  and  Lindisfarne.  From  them  the  Britons, 
Saxons,  and  Piets,  drew  treasures  of  religion  and  literature. 
St.  Aidan,  the  founder  of  Lindisfarne,  converted  the  Nor- 
thumbrians, and  became  archbishop  of  North  England. 
His  second  successor  was  Colman,  who  had  been  a monk  of 
Hy,  and  was  sent  from  there,  according  to  Bede,  to  instruct 
the  Angles.  For  a long  time  after  the  conversion  of  the 
Northumbrians,  the  Irish  missionaries  were  all-powerful 
with  prince  and  people ; but  when  King  Oswin  married 
Eanfled,  who  had  been  educated  in  Kent,  under  Roman 
teachers,  the  Paschal  difference  drew  his  attention  (2).  To 
procure  uuiformity,  he  invited  the  two  contending  parties, 
in  664,  to  meet  him  at  Whitby,  and  there  dispute  the  ques- 
tion. The  champion  of  the  Roman  computation  was  St. 
Wilfrid,  at  this  time  abbot  of  Ripon.  He  had  been  edu- 
cated at  Lindisfarne,  but  had  acquired  in  Rome  the  new 
computation.  Associated  with  Wilfrid  was  Agilbert,  a 
Frenchman,  who  had  studied  in  Ireland,  and  was  then  bisii- 
op  of  the  West  Saxons.  The  defence  of  the  Irish  cause  was 
entrusted  to  St  Colman,  aud  in  his  argument,  he  did  not 
cesisu’1  those  who  used  the  Rn  • < *i  cycle,  but  claimed  the 
right  to  retain  a custom  founded  by  so  many  holy  men.  To 
this  St.  Wilfrid  replied,  “ I believe  that  had  they  been 

<1)  Loc.  cit.,  p.  158.  <2)  Lingard  ; Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church , c.  1. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


118 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


rightly  informed  on  the  subject,  they,  too,  would  have  con- 
formed to  the  universal  usage.  You  and  your  associates 
certainly  commit  sin  if,  after  hearing  the  decrees  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See,  nay,  of  the  Universal  Church,  and  these  confirmed 
by  the  holy  Scriptures,  you  disdain  to  follow  them.  For 
although  your  fathers  were  saints,  yet  in  their  small  num- 
ber, in  the  very  extremity  of  the  world,  they  must  not  be 
preferred  to  the  whole  Church.  And  however  holy  and  il- 
lustrious a performer  of  miracles  your  Columba  was,  is  he 
to  be  preferred  to  the  most  blessed  Prince  of  the  Apostles  ?” 
The  end  of  the  discussion  was  that  Os  win  declared  he 
would  “ not  oppose  the  heavenly  gate-keeper,”  so  Wilfrid’s 
side  gained  the  day.  We  will  dismiss  this  subject  with  the 
following  quotation  from  Dr.  Moran’s  valuable  work  (1): 
“ One  happy  result,  at  least,  followed  from  the  conference 
at  Whitby,  that,  forsooth,  it  preserved  an  indubious  record 
of  how  the  Irish  and  Roman  clergy,  even  in  the  warmth  of 
their  controversy,  were  found  of  one  accord  asserting  the 
prerogatives  and  supreme  authority  of  St.  Peter.  St.  Wil- 
frid and  Agilbert  were  themselves,  indeed,  witnesses  as  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Irish  schools,  whilst  Column  combined 
in  himself  the  doctrine  of  Lindisfarne  and  Iona,  nay  more, 
of  the  whole  Irish  Church;  for,  on  being  expelled  from. his 
pionastery  by  King  Os  win,  he  retired  to  Ireland  and  founded 
there  the  monasteries  of  Inisbofin  and  Mayo,  being  vener- 
ated by  all  for  his  learning  and  sancity.  The  learned  Pro- 
testant dean  of  Ardagh  (2),  to  whose  singular  opinions  we 
have  more  than  once  referred  in  the  preceding  pages,  thus 
comments  on  the  Whitby  conference  : — Colmau,  when  he 
found  his  opinions  rejected,  resigned  his  see  of  Lindisfarne, 
rather  than  submit  to  this  decision  of  the  king,  thus  fur- 
nishing us  with  a remarkable  proof  that  the  Irish  bishops 
in  the  seventh  century  rejected  the  authority  of  the  Pope. 
This,  indeed,  is  singularly  strange  reasoning.  *His  logical 
conclusions  should  rather  have  been — 1.  Thac  as  there  was 
no  exercise  of  the  Popes  authority,  St.  Column  could  not 

(1)  P.  3,  c.  1. 

(2)  Dr.  R.  Murray.  The  lunik  alluded  in  l»y  Dr.  Moran  Is  entitled  Inland  amf  her  Church , 
London, 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


THE  EASTER  CONTROVERSY. 


119 


have  resisted  it.  2.  That  he  even  openly  and  expressly  ac- 
kno^vledged  the  authority  of  Rome.  3.  That  he  moreover 
furnishes  us  with  a most  striking  proof  of  the  opinion  of 
the  Irish  church  in  the  seventh  century,  that  che  judgment 
of  the  court  or  crown  was  very  far  from  being  decisive  on 
matters  of  ecclesiastical  discipline ; and  hence — 4.  That 
St.  Colman  would  deem  it  strange,  indeed,  to  be  classed  by 
the  worthy  dean  amongst  the  members  or  abettors  of  the 
Anglican  church/*  (1) 


(1)  Speaking  of  this  different**?  of  discipline  prevalent,  nt  one  time,  in  the  Roman  and 
British  churrhes.  Litigant  says : **  On  this  circumstance  the  prejudice  of  pai  iy  has  endeav- 
ored to  build  a wild  nnd  extravagant  system.  Because  the  British  Christians  of  the 
seventh  century  differed  from  the  Roman  Church  in  the  time  of  celebrating  Easter,  it  has 
been  gratuitously  asserted  that  they  were  Qua rtodeci mans , that  of  consequence  their 
fathers  were  of  the  same  iiersuasion : and  ultimately  that  the  faith  was  planted  In  Britain 
by  missionaries  who  were  not  sent  from  Rome,  but  from  some  of  the  Asiatic  churches.  The 
truth  or  falsehood  of  the  latter  Iiy|M»thesis  Is  of  little  consequence ; yet  it  is  certaiu  that  the 
Britons,  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustine,  were  not  Quartodeclmans,  as  they  observed  Easter  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon,  only  when  that  day  happened  to  be  a Sunday : (Bede,  b. 
III.,  c.  4)  and  that  their  ancestors  were  not  Quartodecimans,  is  no  less  certain,  if  any  credit 
be  due  to  Eusebius  ( Hist .,  b.  r>,c  23).  to  Socrates  (b.  c.  21),  to  Constantine,  in  his  letter  to 
the  bishops  (Euseb.,  b.  8,  c.  14)  and  to  the  suliscriptions  of  the  British  prelates  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  Arles  <Spel.  Cone.,  p.  40).  I should  not  omit  that  Goodall  (Intro d.  to  Hist.  Scot., 
Keith's  i \ttnl . of  Scott  Mi  Bishops,  preface!  asserts  that  the  Scots  employed  the  same  cycle, 
and  observed  Easter  on  the  same  day  as  was  customary  in  the  Roman  Church,  previous  to 
the  Council  of  Nice.  He  founds  his  opiniou  on  the  ancient  Paschal  Table  published  by 
Bucher,  in  which  the  festival  is  fixed  ou  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon  for  the  years  816 
and  320.”  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church , c.  I. 


“ It  is  quite  commonly  believed  that  there  is  a law  prohibiting  Christians  from  celebrating 
the  peach  ou  the  same  day  with  the  Jews,  and  Its  existence  is  asserted  In  various  works. 
But  no  such  law  exists,  and  it  was  never  enforced.  Pope  Victor  simply  decreed  that  the 
pasch  should  uot  be  celebrated,  as  is  done  by  the  Jews,  on  any  day  whatever  of  the  week, 
but  only  ou  a Sunday.  In  fact,  in  the  year  following  that  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  that  is, 
826,  the  Christian  pasch  coincided  with  that  of  the  Jews,  and  it  was  so  celebrated  without 
any  difficulty  being  raised.  The  same  coincidence  occurred  in  1602,  1009,  1805,  1825,  and  in 
the  next  century,  it  will  happen  in  1903,  1923,  19.H,  1981.  In  these  years  the  pasch  falls  on  a 
Sunday,  and  precisely  on  a day  of  full-moon.  Therefore  it  is  an  error  to  suppose,  as  some 
do,  that  when  the  moon  becomes  full  ou  a Sunday,  the  pasch  is  to  be  postponed  to  the 
following  Sunday.  On  the  contrary,  the  Council  of  Nice  declares  that,  in  such  a 
case,  the  Sunday  is  especially  opportune  for  the  solemnity.  And  indeed,  a postponement 
would  carry  the  pasch  to  the  22nd  day  of  the  moon,  that  is,  into  its  last  quarter,  which 

would  be  a direct  contradiction  of  the  will  of  the  Council It  would  certainly  be  an 

Improvement  if  Easter  were  made  an  immovable  feast,  and  the  Church  'exercising  her 
right,  could  freely  do  so’  (Krpla nation  of  the  Iloman  Calendar , as  restored  hyPopc 
Oregnru  XI II.;  by  Christopher  Clavio,  Rome,  1008).  But  the  Church  has  preferred  to  re- 
tain the  present  system,  both  because  of  its  antiquity— a great  obstacle  to  any  innovation— 
■and  because  of  * the  recondite  mysteries  Included  in  it.’  ” Canto  ; Univ.  Hist,,  Documents : 
Art.  Chronology , 8 25. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


CHAPTER  IX. 

CONTROVERSY  REGARDING  “ THE  FALLEN  ” UNDER  PERSECUTION 

The  constancy  which  our  ancestors  in  the  faith,  general- 
ly speaking,  exhibited  under  persecution,  is  so  remarka- 
ble, that  we  rightly  look  upon  it  as  one  of  the  many  proofs 
of  the  divinity  of  cur  holy  religion.  Their  constancy  was 
so  different  from  the  perseverance  sometimes  shown  by  the 
votaries  of  other  creeds  in  similar  circumstances,  so  void  of 
obstinacy,  petulancy,  fanaticism,  or  fatalism,  that  the  ration- 
alist tries  in  vain  to  account  for  it  on  purely  natural 
grounds.  But  there  were  some  exceptions  to  this  rule  of 
constancy,  in  all  of  the  persecutions,  just  as  there  was  one 
in  the  very  first  assemblage  of  Christians  that  the  world 
beheld.  Especially,  during  the  persecution  of  Decius,  the 
number  who  denied  their  faith,  directly  or  indirectly,  waa 
large.  This  persecution  was  far  more  ferocious,  as  we  have 
seen,  than  any  of  the  preceding  ones,  and  it  came  upon  the 
faithful  with  multiplied  force,  because  they  were  com- 
paratively enervated  by  a long  period  of  rest.  We  have 
said  that  the  number  of  t lie  “ fallen”  was  large  in  this  per- 
secution ; we  mean,  not  that  a great  many  openly  denied 
the  One  God,  and  sacrificed  to  the  false  deities  of  Paganism, 
but  that  many  shrank  from  an  open  avowal,  and  availed 
themselves  of  an  unworthy  and  cowardly  scheme  to  escape 
from  the  consequences  of  unshaken  fidelity.  For  the  fallen 
must  be  divided  into  two  classes,  the  “ thurificators,”  or  of- 
ferers of  incense,  and  the  Ubellatiei,  or  those  who  took  out 
pretended  certificates  of  sacrifice.  The  name  of  the  first 
class  sufficiently  indicates  the  status  of  its  members,  but  an 
explanation  is  necessary  to  a full  understanding  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  third  term.  Many  of  the  magistrates,  whom 
Decius  ordered,  under  threat  of  condign  punishment,  to  en- 
force his  edict,  were  approachable  by  bribes  ; some  also 
were  of  a clement  disposition.  Whether  influenced  by  lovo 
of  money  or  by  sentiments  of  pity,  these  officers  devised  &> 

120 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  “FALLEN  ” UNDER  PERSECUTION. 


121 


mean*  of  avoiding  the  commanded  act  of  sacrifice,  which 
proved  acceptable  to  many  of  the  weaker  Christians.  This 
means  consisted  in  taking  from  the  official  a certificate 
(libellus),  which  stated  that  the  bearer  had  offered  sacrifice 
to  the  gods.  And  as  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  recipient 
to  appear  in  person  before  the  judge,  since  he  could  receive 
the  saving  document  through  an  agent,  he  the  more  easily 
satisfied  his  conscience  that  he  had  not  even  seemed  to 
deny  Christ  before  the  world.  Had  such  persons  simply 
bribed  the  judges  to  leave  them  in  peace,  to  abstain  from 
citing  them  before  the  tribunals,  they  would  merely  have 
manifested  a weakness  ; but  in  the  case  of  the  certified,  in 
the  Decian  persecution,  their  fellow  citizens  were  led  to  be- 
lieve that  they  had  denied  their  God.  And  even  though 
the  giving  of  false  certificates  were  so  common  and  no- 
torious, that  it  would  always  be  doubtful  whether,  in  this 
or  that  particular  instance,  the  denial  had  really  been  pro- 
nounced, yet  the  certificated  person  was  subject  to  the  im- 
putation, and  therefore  gave  reason  for  grave  scandal  to  his 
brethren.  Hence  the  Church  regarded  the  certified  as 
ranking  in  guilt  next  to  the  sacrificers.  St.  Cyprian  says, 
in  his  fifteenth  epistle  to  the  clergy  of  Rome,  “ When  I found 
those  who  had  tainted  their  hands  and  mouths  with  sacri- 
legious contracts,  or  had  polluted  their  consciences  with 
the  execrable  certificates,  going  around  among  the  martyrs 
and  confessors,  importuning  them  for  intercessory  letters,, 
without  any  discrimination  or  examination  of  each  case, 
I wrote  to  those  martyrs  and  confessors,  that,  so  far  as  in 
me  lay,  I might  recall  them  to  the  observance  of  the  Lord’s 
precepts.”  In  another  place  (1),  the  saint  compares  the 
weakness  of  the  certified  with  the  conduct  of  Eleazar,  as 
narrated  in  March.  II.,  c . 6.  “ And  lest  any  one  take  ad- 

vantage of  the  wicked  offer  of  the  deceivers,  in  the  shape 
of  a certificate,  or  any  other  deception,  let  Eleazar  not  be 
forgotten,  who,  when  the  royal  ministers  offered  him  food 
which  he  was  allowed  to  eat,  that  he  might  deceive  the  king 
by  appearing  to  eat  the  illicit  food  of  sacrifice,  would  not 
consent  to  the  fraud,  saying  that  it  was  not  fitting  to  hia 

(V  Exhortation  to  Martyrdom,  c.  XI. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


122 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTOR  . 


age  or  station  to  feign  what  would  scandalize  others,  anA 

lead  them  into  error God,  who  is  the  judge  o) 

our  consciences,  and  alone  to  be  feared,  cannot  be  mocked 
or  deceived.” 

In  the  first  quotation  from  St.  Cyprian,  we  learn  that  the 
fallen  used  to  beg  from  the  martyrs  intercessory  letters,  of 
petitions  to  the  Church,  that  the  bishops  would  shorten 
their  public  penance.  The  reverence  of  the  faithful  for 
those  who  had  suffered,  or  were  about  to  suffer,  for  the 
faith,  was  very  great,  and  the  Church  encouraged  that  rev- 
erence, even  to  the  point  of  granting  to  the  prayers  of  the 
confessors  what  would  otherwise  never  have  been  conceded. 
Hence,  those  who  had  unfortunately  become  either  sacrifi- 
cers  or  certificated,  thronged  around  the  expectant  suffer- 
ers, beseeching  them  to  request,  through  the  Church’s  ap- 
preciation of  their  coming  trial,  a remission  of  the  punish- 
ment due  to  their  own  pusillanimity.  This  custom  was 
greatly  abused,  and  many  of  the  fallen  insisted  upon  the 
bishops  accepting  the  “ letters  of  peace”  in  lieu  of  any  pub- 
lic penance.  “Some  of  these  turbulent  spirits,  ’ says  St. 
Oyprian,  “ who,  even  in  the  past,  were  with  difficulty  ruled 
by  us,  and  in  our  very  presence  were  disputatious,  now  be- 
came, through  these  letters,  as  fiery  as  though  a torch  had 
been  applied  to  them,  and  tried  to  extort  the  peace  prom- 
ised them  ” (1).  And  again,  “ After  I had  written  to  you 
about  the  temerity  of  certain  persons  who  refused  to  per- 
form peuance  and  satisfy  God,  they  applied  to  me,  saying 
that  peace  was  not  to  be  given  them,  for  it  had  already  been 
given  to  them  by  Paul  (a  certain  martyr).”  This  demand 
of  the  fallen  was  most  presumptuous,  and  of  itself  proved 
that  they  were  in  bad  disposition  for  communion,  for  the 
Church  had  always  insisted  upon  satisfaction  for  sin.  The 
Church  had  always  striven  against  the  abuse  of  the  martyrs’ 
letters  of  peace.  From  the  most  ancient  times,  the  deacons 
were  in  the  habit  of  visiting  the  prisons  to  moderate  the 
zeal  of  the  confessors  in  granting  such  letters.  And  it 
was  always  understood  that  the  peace  of  the  Church  was 
not  attained  by  the  mere  reception  of  such  a letter ; that 

(1)  Letter  to  the  Homan  Clergy , No.  16. 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


THE  “ FALLEN  ” UNDER  PERSECUTION. 


123 


the  martyrs  merely  besought  the  peace  for  the  recipient,  as 
a favor  to  themselves.  Again,  in  granting  the  letter,  the 
martyr  was  obliged  to  name  the  person  in  whose  interest 
the  favor  was  asked  ; it  was  therefore  an  inexcusable  abuse 
to  extend  the  favor  to  one  s friends,  as  many  tried  to  do. 
St.  Cyprian  speaks  of  this  attempt  as  follows  (1) : “ You 
ought  to  correct  this  thing  diligently,  and  designate  by 
name  those  to  whom  you  wish  peace  to  be  conceded.  For 
I hear  that  letters  are  given  by  some,  saying,  ‘ Let  so  and 
so  communicate,  and  also  his  friends,'  and  hitherto  that 
has  never  been  done  by  the  martyrs.  ...  I therefore  ask  that 
you  designate  by  name,  and  give  letters,  consonant  to  faith 
and  discipline,  only  to  those  whom  you  yourselves  see  and 
know,  and  whose  penance  you  know  to  be  nearly  completed.” 
This  abuse  of  the  letters  of  peace,  and  especially  the  claim 
that  they  were  of  themselves  sufficient  to  entitle  the  recipient 
to  communion,  was  resisted  to  the  utmost  by  St.  Cyprian, 
in  whose  jurisdiction  most  of  the  trouble  happened.  He 
was  obliged  to  contend,  not  only  against  the  audacity  of  the 
fallen,  but  even  against  many  of  the  martyrs,  who  insisted 
upon  the  conciliatory  nature  of  their  letters  a9  being  inde- 
pendent of  any  episcopal  decision.  Thus,  a practice  which 
had  come  in  vogue  through  the  Church’s  veneration  for  those 
who  had  shed,  or  were  about  to  shed,  their  blood  for  Christ, 
now  threatened  not  only  the  right'of  the  pastors  to  control 
their  own  discipline,  but  that  humility  and  simplicity  of  mo- 
tive which  were,  under  God,  the  surest  force  of  the 
martyr.  In  the  midst  of  his  anxiety,  St.  Cyprian  be- 
thought himself  of  the  Apostolic  See,  but  the  chair  of 
Peter  was  then  vacant,  and  so  disturbed  were  the  clergy  of 
Rome  by  the  fierceness  of  the  persecution  of  Decius,  that  it 
was  as  yet  impossible  to  fill  the  vacancy.  However,  the  holy 
bishop  of  Carthage  besought  the  advice  of  the  Roman 
dergv,  and  the  result  was  the  issue  of  a provisory  decree  to 
the  effect  that  the  owners  of  letters  of  peace  were  to  be  re* 
conciled  to  the  Church,  if  they  were  in  danger  of  death  ; the 
others  were  to  await  the  pleasure  of  their  bishops,  to  be 
announced  when  the  cessation  of  the  persecution  would 

(1)  Epist.  2,  to  Martyrs  and  Conftssors. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


124 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


admit  of  an  examination  of  the  respective  cases.  With  re^ 
gard  to  this  decision,  St.  Cyprian  wrote  to  Antonianus  (1) 

“ I wrote  most  fully  to  the  Roman  clergy,  then  without  a 
bishop,  and  to  the  priest  Maximus  and  other  confessors 
then  in  prison,  but  now  joined  with  Cornelius  to  the  Church. 
What  1 wrote,  you  can  know  from  their  answers,  for  in  their 
epistles  they  thus  replied,*  What  you  have  done  in  this  im- 
portant affair  is  pleasing  to  us,  that  the  peace  of  the  Church 
be  first  consulted;  that  then  there  be  held  a comparison 
of  opinions,  of  the  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  and  also  the 
confessors,  the  laity  being  witnesses,  to  treat  the  cause  of 
the  fallen.’  It  wTas  then  added,  that  peace  should  be  acs 
corded  to  the  fallen  who  were  sick,  or  in  danger  of  death. 
Novatian  also  subcribing  to  this,  and  reciting  his  subscript 
tion  with  his  own  voice  ; the  priest  Moses,  then  a confessor 
and  now  a martyr,  also  subscribing.  These  letters  were 
sent  through  the  entire  world,  and  given  to  the  knowledge  of 
all  the  churches,  and  of  all  the  brethren.”  The  council 
which  the  Roman  clergy  recommended  in  their  letter  to  St 
Cyprian  was  held  immediately  after  the  death  of  Decius 
had  given  some  peace  to  the  Church,  and  a peremptory  de- 
cree was  issued,  of  which  the  saint  thus  speaks(2) : <4  As  had 
oeen  already  decided,  when  the  cessation  of  persecution 
allowed  us  to  meet,  a large  number  of  bishops  came  together, 
and  the  protection  of  the  Lord  and  our  own  faith  preserving 
us.  the  Scriptures  ^cre  consulted  by  both  sides,  and  we 
weighed  the  matter  with  saving  moderation,  that  all  hope 
of  communion  might  not  be  denied  to  the  fallen,  and  thus 
they  be  driven  by  desperation,  if  the  Church  were  closed 
to  them,  to  follow  the  w'orld  and  live  like  gentiles.  Nor 
should  the  ecclesiastical  censure  be  disregarded,  by  our 
rashly  admitting  them  to  communion  ; so  penance  was  con- 
tinued, and  paternal  clemency  was  to  be  contritely  sought 
after,  and  each  case  was  to  be  examined,  with  the  disposi- 
tion and  necessity  of  each  person.” 

Finally,  St.  Cornelius  having  been  elevated  to  the  Papacy, 
a synod  was  held  in  Rome  in  the  year  254,  in  which  it  was 
decreed  that  those  of  the  fallen,  who  had  really  sacrificed 

fl)  m.  c-d)  Idnn. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  “FALLEN”  UNDER  PERSECUTION. 


125 


to  the  gods,  should  do  full  penance  before  restoration  to 
communion,  unless  they  were  in  danger  of  death.  Such  of 
this  class  as  were  priests,  were  reduced  to  the  rank  of  lay- 
men, and  as  such,  after  penance,  admitted  to  communion. 
The  libettatici,  or  certificated,  were  received  into  the  peace  of 
the  faithful  without  any  penance,  other  than  that  they  had 
themselves  voluntarilv  undertaken.  The  Church  was  nat- 
urally mucn  more  lenient  with  the  certificated  than  with 
the  sacrificers.  “There  is  a great  difference/'  says  St. 
Cyprian  (1),  “even  among  those  who  have  sacrificed; 
what  cruelty,  then,  what  fearful  acerbity,  it  would  be,  to 
join  the  merely  certificated  with  the  sacrificers!  He,  who 
has  accepted  the  certificate,  says,  4 1 had  read,  and  I had 
known  from  the  bishop,  speaking  on  this  matter,  that  I 
should  not  sacrifice  to  the  idols,  and  that  a servant  of  God 
should  not  adore  at  their  altars ; and  therefore,  when  the 
occasion  was  offered  to  obtain  a certificate,  I went  to  the 
magistrate,  or  sent  another — lest  I might  do  that  which,  is  not 
permitted — and  said  that  I was  a Christian,  that  I could 
not  sacrifice,  that  I could  not  approach  the  altar  of  the 
devil,  and  that  therefore  he  should,  in  return  for  a sum  of 
money,  free  me  from  doing  what  I was  not  allowed  to  do.* 
Now,  however,  this  man,  who  is  contaminated  by  his  certi- 
ficate, after  he  has  understood  from  our  rebukes  that  this 
thing  should  not  have  been  done  ; that,  even  if  his  hands  be 
pure,  and  his  mouth  tainted  by  no  contact  with  forbidden 
food,  yet  his  conscience  is  polluted ; having  heard  all  this, 
he  stands  and  laments,  <fcc.” 

If,  at  first  sight,  the  Church’s  treatment  of  the  sacrificers 
seems  too  harsh,  it  is  well  to  know  that,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, she  tempered  her  severity.  Thus,  if  a per- 
secution were  imminent,  she  conceded  them  immediate  ab- 
solution. Under  such  circumstances,  St.  Cyprian  wrote  to 
Pope  Cornelius,  epist.  54,  “Peace  is  now  necessary,  not  to  | 
the  weak,  but  to  the  strong ; not  for  the  dying,  but  for  the 
healthy.  We  must  now  concede  communion,  that  those, 
whom  we  exhort  to  battle,  be  not  left  helpless,  but  be  for- 
tified with  the  protection  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.” 

(1)  Evist.  to  Antonian , 52. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


126 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Again,  immediate  absolution  was  granted  to  those  of  the 
fallen  who  suffered  anything  for  the  honor  of  Christ,  or  who 
did  anything  difficult  which  redounded  to  the  good  of  the 
Church.  This  is  proved  by  a letter  of  Caldonius,  an  Afri- 
can bishop,  to  St.  Cyprian  (1),  asking  his  advice  about  re- 
storing to  communion  some  of  the  fallen  ones  who  had 
just  proved  their  sincere  repentance  by  submitting  to  exile 
rather  than  to  a denial  of  Christ  “ You  have  judged  cor- 
rectly, ” answered  the  saint,  “ as  to  the  granting  of  peace  to 
our  brethren,  for  they  have  brought  it  to  themselves  by  true 
penance,  and  by  a glorious  avowal  of  the  Lord.”  Further, 
if  delay  would  have  caused  danger  of  schism,  absolu- 
tion was  immediately  granted  to  the  fallen.  This  is  shown 
by  the  rule  laid  down  by  St.  Augustine  (2)  : “ I assert  noth- 
ing new  or  unaccustomed,  but  what  the  health  of  the 
Church  requires,  that  when  any  one  of  the  Christian 
brethren,  constituted  in  the  society  of  the  Church,  is  found 
guilty  of  such  a sin,  he  be  held  worthy  of  anathema ; let 

this  be  done  where  there  is  no  danger  of  schism 

He  who  diligently  considers  this,  will  not  neglect  the  sever- 
ity of  discipline  in  the  preservation  of  unity,  nor  will  he 
rupture  the  tie  of  community  by  immoderate  coercion.’* 
Finally,  immediate  absolution  was  conceded  to  the  excom- 
municated, when  any  great  good  would  thereby  accrue  to 
the  Church,  such  as  the  extinction  or  diminution  of  a 
schism,  or  the  conversion  of  many  to  the  fold.  We  learn  this 
from  the  action  of  Pope  Cornelius  in  the  case  of  several 
Novatian  converts,  and  in  the  case  of  the  priest  Trophimus, 
who  had  wandered  from  the  Church.  In  the  first  instance. 
Maximus,  Urban,  Sidon,  Macarius,  and  several  others,  who 
had  been  deceived  by  the  wiles  of  Novatian,  begged  to.  be 
restored  to  communion,  and  as  the  petitioners  were  leaders 
in  the  schism,  the  Pontiff  hoped  that  their  example  would 
encourage  the  rank  and  file  to  return  to  unity.  The  priest 
Maximus  was  fully  restored  to  his  sacerdotal  privileges;  and 
full  forgiveness,  with  no  penance  whatever,  was  accorded  to 
the  rest.  The  case  of  Trophimus  is  narrated  by  St.  Cyp- 
rian in  his  52nd  epistle,  to  Antonian,  and  is  of  the  same 

(1)  Epistles  of  Cyprian , No.  19.  (2)  Against  the  Epistle  of  Varmenian*  b.  U,  c.  2, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  NOTATION  HERESY. 


127 


nature  as  the  preceding,  with  the  difference  thal  Trophimus 
was  reduced  to  lay  communion. 

In  concluding  this  dissertation,  we  would  observe  that 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  do  not  seem  to  have  perceived 
that  the  proceedings  of  the  immense  majority  of  the  early 
apostates  afford  a good  proof  of  the  truth  and  sanctity  of 
our  religion.  When  the  persecutions  ceased,  nearly  all  the 
“fallen”  returned  to  their  allegiance.  And  it  is  a remarka- 
ble fact  that  no  one  of  these  unfortunates,  so  far  as  we  can 
gather  from  history,  ever  traduced  the  faith  he  had  aban- 
doned. Pliny  declares,  in  his  letter  to  Trajan,  that  he 
interrogated  many  of  them,  and  was  led  to  believe  that 
Christianity  was  merely  an  excess  of  superstition. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  NOVATIAN  HERESY. 

The  distinction  of  having  been  the  first  of  the  few  Anti- 
Popes  who  have  troubled  the  Church,  belongs  to  Novatian, 
a Roman  priest,  born  at  the  commencement  of  the  third 
century.  He  had  been  a Pagan,  and  addicted  to  the 
Stoic  philosophy,  but  being  seized  by  sickness,  he  became 
a Christian.  Baptized  in  his  bed,  he  neglected  to  have  the 
accustomed  ceremonies  supplied,  and  hence  became  irregular 
for  the  priesthood.  His  bishop,  however,  dispensed  with 
the  irregularity,  and  he  received  Holy  Orders.  When  per- 
secution became  the  order  of  the  day,  Novatian  shut  himself 
up  in  his  house  ; his  deacons  endeavored  to  prevail  upon  him 
to  go  out  and  encourage  the  faithful,  but  he  declared  that 
he  was  tired  of  the  priesthood,  and  would  return  to  philos- 
ophy (1).  This  was  the  man  who  presumed  to  dispute  the 
Papacy  with  St.  Cornelius,' after  the  election  in  the  year  251. 
He  had  already  sworn  that  he  entertained  no  ambition  for 
the  Pontificate,  but,  scarcely  had  Cornelius  been  installed, 

(1)  St.  Cornelius , Epist.  tv  Fabius  of  Antioch. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


128 


STUPES,  IJJr^CH^JKCH  HISTORY.. 


when  Novatian,  by  the  connivance  of  three  bishops  (1),  re- 
ceived episcopal  consecration,  and  was  proclaimed  by  a few 
partisans  as  head  of  the  Church.  His  principal  assistant, 
and  probably  the  instigator  of  his  schism,  was  Novatus  (2), 
a Carthaginian  priest,  who,  having  revolted  against  St 
Cyprian  (3),  had  tied  to  Rome.  He  was,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  saint  (4),  “ Always  desirous  of  new  things, 
furious  with  the  insatiable  rapacity  of  avarice,  puffed  up  with 
arrogance  and  pride,  always  in  bad  odor  with  the  bishops  of 
these  parts,  condemned  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the 
priests  as  a heretic ; he  wras  ever  curious,  that  he  might  be- 
tray, and  ever  a flatterer,  that  he  might  deceive,  but  never 
faithful,  that  he  might  cherish.  He  was  a torch  for  the 
starting  of  the  fires  of  sedition,  a whirlwind  of  tempest  to 
make  shipwreck  of  faith,  an  enemy  of  quiet,  the  adversary 
of  tranquillity,  the  foe  of  peace.  . . . The  orphans  whom  lie 
has  defrauded,  the  widows  whom  he  has  robbed,  the  churches 
which  he  has  despoiled,  all  demand  his  punishment.  . . . 
His  father  died  in  the  street,  of  starvation,  and  he  would  not 
bury  the  body.  He  kicked  his  wife  in  the  abdomen,  and 
through  the  miscarriage  became  a murderer.  And  now  he 
dares  to  condemn  the  hands  which  sacrificed,  when  his  feet 
are  more  guilty,  since  they  killed  his  son.”  With  the  aid  of 
this  worthy  coadjutor,  Novatian  soon  secured  a sufficient 
number  of  followers  to  cause  a great  amount  of  anxiety  to 
the  legitimate  Pontiff.  One  of  his  first  acts  w’as  to  bind  his 
partisans  by  oath  never  to  return  to  the  communion  of  Cor- 
nelius (5).  He  then  sent  legates  to  Carthage,  bearing  letters 
justifying  his  own  usurpation,  and  calumniating  St  Corne- 
lius, but  St.  Cyprian  refused  to  communicate  with  them. 
Through  all  Africa  the  faithful  primate  sent  letters,  exhorting 
all  the  bishops  to  remain  true  to  the  Papacy,  ‘‘the  root  and 
matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church, ’’  and  received  answers  confirm- 
ing the  necessary  origin  and  just  reason”  of  the  election  of 

(1)  St.  Cornelius  says  that  they  were  “ uncultivated  and  Ignorant  men,  from  the  moat  In- 
significant and  contemptible  quarter  In  Italy."  lhi. 

(2)  St.  Eplphanius,  Eusebius,  and  Theodoret,  confound  the  two  men ; Sts.  Cornelius  and 
Cyprian,  and  Parian,  clearly  distinguish  them. 

,5)  He  accused  the  holy  bishop  of  too  great  leniency  in  his  treatment  of  those  who  fell, 
during  persecution,  and  was  destined  himself  to  rush  into  the  other  extreme. 

(4)  KpM.  4ft.  t • 1'omrliiiM. 

(5)  Each  one  received  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  Instead  of  replying  "Amen"  to  the  words 
of  the  communicator,  said,  “ I shall  never  return  to  Cornelius." 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


THE  NOVATIAN  HERESY. 


129 


Cornelius,  and  his  “ glorious  innocence”  (1).  Novatian  made 
great  efforts  to  draw  the  confessors  and  expectant  martyrs 
to  his  side,  knowing  well  how  much  prestige  would  be 
gained  by  such  success.  Hearing  of  this  attempt,  and  learn- 
ing that  it  had  not  been  entirely  unsuccessful,  St.  Cyprian 
sent  letters,  to  be  first  submitted  to  the  Pontiff,  exhorting 
the  candidates  for  martyrdom  to  remain  faithful  to  unity, 
and  his  zeal  resulted  in  the  return  of  many  perverts. 
Novatian  endeavored  to  win  over  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria. declaring  to  him  that  he  had  with  great  unwilling- 
ness accepted  the  Pontificate  Dionysius  answered  him 
thus : 4 If  you  did  this  unwillingly,  as  you  say,  you  will 
easily  prove  it,  by  renouncing  the  position.  For  one  should 
suffer  anything,  rather  than  impair  the  concord  of  the  Church 
of  God.  That  martyrdom  which  is  sustained  for  the  sake  of 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  is  not  only  not  less  commendable, 
but  is  even  more  so  than  that  which  one  would  undergo 
rather  than  sacrifice  to  idols.  In  this,  one  suffers  for  his 
own  soul;  in  the  other,  for  the  whole  Church.” 

The  Novatians  were,  in  the  beginning,  schismatics,  but 
like  most  separatists,  they  soon  joined  heresy  to  their  other 
crimes.  Their  first  error  was  the  denial  of  the  Church’s 
power  to  forgive  those  who  had  sacrificed  to  the  idols,  or 
even  those  who  had  taken  out  “certificates.”  St.  Cyprian 
says  that  while  he  was  suffering  great  anxiety  as  to  what 
course  to  pursue  with  regard  to  these  penitents,  “ behold, 
there  arises  on  the  other  .side  an  enemy,  the  adversary  of 
any  paternal  clemency,  the  heretic  Novatian,  who  does  not 
merely  imitate  the  priests  and  levite  of  the  Gospel  by  pass- 
ing the  wounded  man.  but  even  kills  him,  by  taking  away 
all  hope  of  salvation  ” (2).  Novatian  went  so  far  as  to  deny 
the  power  of  the  Church  to  forgive  any  sin  committed  after 
baptism,  although,  in  after  times,  his  followers  so  far  tem- 
pered the  doctrine  as  to  acknowledge  the  Church’s  power 
over  venial  sin.  So  we  learn  from  St.  Ambrose  (3)  and  St. 
Pacianus  (4).  Another  error  of  the  Novatians  was  the  re- 
baptism of  their  converts.  They  also  condemned  second 
nuptials. 

(1)  EpM . 45,  to  Cornelius.  (3)  On  Penance , b.  1. 

(2)  On  the  Fallen.  (4)  Epist.  8,  to  Sympronianus. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


130 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


The  legitimate  Pontiff,  St.  Cornelius,  held  a Council  at 
Rome  in  the  year  253,  in  which  Novatian  and  his  followers 
were  anathematized.  They  had  already  been  condemned  in 
synods  held  at  Carthage  in  251,  and  in  Antioch  in  252.  How 
Novatian  terminated  his  career,  we  do  not  know.  His  fol- 
lowers asserted  that  he  died  a martyr.  After  denying  the 
truth  of  this  boast,  St.  Pacian  (1)  says,  “ And  even  if  No- 
vatian did  suffer,  he  received  no  crown  for  his  agonies. 
And  why  not?  Outside  the  peace  of  the  Church,  outside 
of  unity,  away  from  that  mother  to  whom  must  pertain  ev- 
ery one  who  is  a martyr,  hear  the  Apostle  saying  of  him, 

‘ Even  though  I deliver  up  my  body  to  be  burned,  and  have 
not  charity,  it  profiteth  me  nothing.’  ” Though  divided  in- 
to numerous  sects,  the  Novatians  did  not  vanish  in  the  East, 
until  the  seventh  century  ; in  the  West,  not  before  the 
eighth. 

With  regard  to  the  cruelty  of  the  Novatians  toward  the 
“fallen,”  it  may  appear  that  they  were  not  any  more  rigid 
than  were  some  of  the  early  synods  held  by  the  orthodox  ; 
that  some  of  the  canons  of  the  Spanish  council  of  Elvira  (2) 
seem  nearly  as  rigorous  as  the  Novatian  practice.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Church  holds  and  ever  has 
held,  that  she  has  received  from  her  Divine  Founder  the 
power  to  forgive  all  sin  ; that  in  the  council  of  Elvira  and 
similar  synods  this  power  was  always  asserted,  though, 
owing  to  circumstances,  the  bishops  deemed  it  necessary 
to  exact  in  certain  cases  a long  and  severe  penance  before 
the  concession  of  absolution.  We  have  already  seen,  when 
treating  of  the  discipline  in  regard  to  the  fallen,  that  there 
were  several  circumstances  in  which  the  Church  held  her 
rigor  in  abeyance.  But  Novatian,  or  his  adherents,  denied 
the  power  itself,  just  as  do  the  heretics  of  modern  times. 
Socrates  tells  us,  in  b . 7,  chap . 25,  that  Asclapiades,  a No- 
vatian bishop,  said  to  a patriarch  of  Constantinople,  “ We 
cannot  communicate  with  great  sinners,  but  leave  to  God 
alone  the  power  of  forgiving  them.”  And  Sts.  Pacian  and 
Augustine  ascribe  this  doctrine  to  Novatian  again  and  again. 

(1)  Idem,  EpLst.  2. 

(2)  Held  at  the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century.  The  precise  date  is  controverted 
but  most  probably  It  was  Just  before  the  persecution  of  Maximian. 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


THE  N0YAJ1AN  HERESY. 


131 


In  the  days  of  Novatian  there  was  more  at  stake  than  the 
mere  policy  or  duty  of  pardoning  the  unfortunate  fallen ; 
there  had  arisen  a question  as  to  the  power  of  the  Church 
to  forgive  all  sin.  In  the  interest  of  his  own  sect,  Mos- 
heim  says  that  the  Novatians  should  not  be  reproached  for 
corrupting  Christian  doctrine,  as  their  opinions  did  not 
much  differ  from  those  of  their  fellow  Christians  (1).  How 
far  this  assertion  is,  true,  we  have  seen.  It  may  be  painful 
for  a Protestant  to  hear  one  of  his  favorite  opinions  con- 
demned by  the  Church  of  the  third  century,  but  neverthe- 
less the  fact  remains.  The  following  passage  from  the  let- 
ter sent  by  St.  Cyprian  to  Pope  St.  Cornelius,  after  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Council  of  Carthage  of  251,  furnishes  an  ex- 
cellent summary  of  the  question  at  issue  with  the  Novatians, 
and  of  the  action  of  the  African  fathers  thereupon.  “We 
had  already  decreed,  after  mutual  consultation,  that  those 
who  had  been  overthrown  by  the  adversary  in  the  heat  of  per- 
secution, or  had  so  fallen  as  to  stain  themselves  with  illicit 
sacrifice,  should,  for  a long  time,  perform  full  penance  ; or, 
if  there  were  danger  of  weakness,  that  they  should  receive 
peace  when  threatened  by  death.  For  it  was  not  right, 
nor  did  paternal  devotion  or  divine  clemency  allow,  that  the 
Church  should  be  closed  to  those  who  applied  for  admis- 
sion ; or  that  those  who  were  contrite,  and  sought  the  aid 
of  salutary  hope,  should  be  denied  it,  and  sent  out  of  the 
world  without  the  communion  and  peace  of  the  Lord;  when 
He  Himself,  who  gave  the  law,  had  permitted  that  what 
was  bound  on  earth,  should  be  bound  in  Heaven,  and  what 
was  loosed  on  earth,  should  also  be  loosed  in  Heaven. 
For  when  we  perceived  that  another  period  of  persecution 
was  approaching,  and  by  frequent  and  constant  signs  we 
were  shown  that  we  should  be  armed  and  prepared  for  the 
fight  offered  by  the  enemy ; that  we  should  get  ready  the 
people  entrusted  to  us  by  the  divine  mercy ; that  we  should 
bring  into  the  camp  of  the  Lord  every  one  of  the  soldiers 
of  Christ  who  call  for  arms  and  cry  for  battle  ; we  deemed 
ourselves  compelled  by  necessity  to  concede  peace  to  those 
who  had  not  left  the  Church  of  God,  and  who  had  not  ceased. 

(1)  Ecclet f.  Hist.*  Sra  ctni.,  p.  Si,  c.  b;  Hint.  (7i rist.,  3rd  cent.,  in  notes. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


132 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


from  the  first  day  of  their  fall,  to  do  penance  and  to  lament 
and  to  beseech  the  Lord/'  And  in  his  52nd  epistle  to  An- 
tonianus,  the  holy  primate  says,  “ We  do  not  anticipate  the 
judgment  of  God,  who  wrill  ratify  what  we  have  done,  if  He 
finds  that  their  repentance  was  sincere  and  entire.  If  we 
were  deceived  by  false  appearances,  He  will  correct  the  sen- 
tence which  we  hare  pronounced Since  we  know  that 

no  one  should  be  debarred  from  doing  penance,  and  that, 
by  the  mercy  of  God,  peace  can  be  accorded  by  the  priests, 
we  must  have  regard  for  the  groans  of  our  penitents,  and 
not  refuse  them  their  reward.” 


CHAPTER  XL 

CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OF  BAPTISM. 

We  now  approach  one  of  the  most  important  controver- 
sies ever  developed  in  the  Church — important  not  only  on 
account  of  the  sanctity  and  eminent  position  of  the  parties 
to  the  agitation,  but  because  of  the  vital  nature  of  the  prin- 
ciple involved.  At  the  commencement  of  the  third  century, 
an  opinion  began  to  be  ventilated  that  the  validity  of  Bap- 
tism depended  upon  the  orthodoxy  of  the  minister.  Such 
an  idea  was  a natural  outgrowth  from  a state  of  society 
intensely  hostile  to  schism  or  heresy,  if  the  members  listen- 
ed rather  to  their  prejudices  than  to  the  calmly  logical  and 
unerring  voice  of  the  proper  magistracy.  The  first  pro- 
mulgator of  this  opinion  seems  to  have  been  Agrippinus,  bish- 
op of  Carthage,  who,  in  a synod  of  his  suffragans,  held  in 
the  year  215,  declared,  says  St.  Cyprian  (1),  that  “He  who 
comes  from  heretics,  and  has  not  been  already  baptized  in 
the  Church,  but  comes  as  a profane  one  and  an  entire 
stranger,  is  to  be  baptized,  that  he  may  become  one  of  the 
sheep,  for  there  is  but  one  water  in  the  Church  for  the  mak- 
ing of  sheep We  also  have  followed  this  doctrine,  as 

(1)  Epist.  71,  to  Quintus. 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OF  BAPTISM.  133 

religious,  legitimate,  salutary,  and  agreeing  with  that  of  the 
Catholic  Church.”  The  new  doctrine  soon  spread  into  the 
East,  and  acquired  zealous  defenders  in  St.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  and  Firmilian  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia.  But 
its  principal  support  was  found  in  St.  Cyprian.  In  the  year 
256,  a synod  was  l*eld  at  Carthage,  in  which  the  doctrine 
was  so  plainly  asserted,  that  the  fathers  would  not  deign  to 
use  the  word  “rebaptize,”  but  substituted  “ baptize,”  for, 
says  St.  Cyprian  (1),  “ they  do  not  receive  anything  where 
there  is  nothing  ; but  they  come  to  us,  with  whom  are  grace 
and  all  truth,  for  grace  and  truth  are  one.”  In  the  same 
year,  another  synod  was  celebrated  at  Carthage,  and  71 
bishops  signed  the  synodical  letter  sent  to  Pope  Stephen, 
begging  his  confirmation  of  their  decrees.  The  following  pas- 
sage of  this  letter  is  interesting  : “ Many  things  were  trans- 
acted, but  we  thought  to  write  to  you,  and  to  consult  your 
Gravity  and  Wisdom  principally,  upon  a thing  greatly  affect- 
ing the  sacerdotal  authority,  and  the  unity  and  dignity  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  derived  from  the  providence  of  God  ; 
namely,  that  those  should  be  baptized,  who  come  to  us  and 
the  one  Church,  after  having  been  tainted  by  profane  water 
Among  the  heretical  schismatics.”  When  Pope  Stephen  had 
read  this  synodical  epistle,  he  vehemently  reproved  the  errors 
it  contained.  His  letter  has  not  come  down  to  us,  but  it  must 
have  been  very  firm,  and  very  pointed  in  its  terms,  to  cause 
St.  Cyprian  to  speak  of  it  as  follows  (2) : “"Among  other 
haughty,  or  not  pertinent,  or  contradictory  things  which  he 
unlearnedly  and  improvidently  wrote,  he  said,  ‘ If,  therefore, 
Any  one  comes  to  us  from  any  heresy  whatever,  let  there  be  no 
innovation  beyond  what  has  been  handed  down  to  us,  name- 
ly, that  hands  be  laid  upon  him  in  penance.’”  Baronio, 
and  some  others,  hold  that  Pope  Stephen  excommunicated 
St.  Cyprian  and  his  brother  bishops  for  their  persistency 
in  this  matter,  but  the  probabilities  are  in  favor  of  the 
opinion  that  no  such  decree  was  issued.  We  shall  speak 
more  fully  on  this  point,  when  we  come  to  treat  the  various 
-questions  arising  out  of  the  controversy.  Whether  St. 
Cyprian  abandoned  his  error  or  not,  we  have  no  means  of 

(1)  Tbi.  (2)  Eplst.  74,  to  Pompeiwt. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


134 


STUDIES  m CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ascertaining,  but  it  is  certain  that,  through  the  entire  con- 
troversy, he  and  his  friends  regarded  the  question  as  one, 
not  of  faith,  but  of  discipline. 

There  are  several  knotty  points  in  this  controversy  upon 
the  Repetition  of  Baptism,  and  it  would  be  very  convenient, 
if  we  could  dismiss  the  whole  question  as  a work  of  the 
imagination,  as  lacking  any  historical  foundation.  But 
though  there  would  then  be  no  necessity  for  grappling  with 
some  apparent  and  some  real  difficulties,  truth  will  not  al- 
low us  to  imitate  those  authors  who  have  seen  fit  to  reject  as 
unauthentictlie  documents  bearing  upon  the  controversy  (1). 
It  is  asserted  by  these  writers  that  we  ought  not  to  credit 
the  testimony  of  Eusebius  in  this  matter ; that  he  invented  the 
whole  history  in  the  interests  of  the  Donatists ; and  that, 
again,  the  Donatists  themselves  interpolated  many  of  the 
passages  of  Eusebius  referring  to  it.  As  for  Eusebius* 
working  in  the  interests  of  Donatism,  merely  because  he  was 
an  Arian,  that  is  pure  conjecture,  and  not  a solid  one  ; again, 
we  know  that  he  really  condemned  rebaptism,  from  liis6oo&  7,. 
c.  2,  &c.  As  for  the  Donatist  interpolations,  we  cannot  acknowl- 
edge them,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  admit  that  a compara- 
tively weak  sect  succeeded,  in  the  face  of  powerful  opponents, 
in  vitiati  ng  all  the  codices  of  Eusebius’  history.  St.  Augustine 
appears  to  speak  very  clearly  upon  all  matters  concerning 
the  controversy,  but  his  testimony  is  rejected  by  those 
who  relegate  the  story  to  the  realms  of  imagination.  They 
contend  that  the  holy  doctor  only  speaks  hypothetically  of 
the  matter,  that  is,  that  he  supposes,  merely  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  this  history,  adduced  by  the  Donatists,  is 
true,  wishing  to  present  to  them  (who  were  so  rebellious) 
the  picture  of  Cyprian,  who  differed  in  opinion  from  the 
head  of  the  Church,  but  yet  did  not  rush  into  schism.  This 
theory  is  specious,  but  whenever  St.  Augustine  treats  of 
this  subject,  he  seems  to  feel  that  it  is  a fact,  one  which,  for 
Cyprian’s  sake,  he  would  like  to  excuse.  And  in  his  book 
7,  on  Ho pt :V»/,  r.  20,  lie  says  that  “Peter,  the  first  of  the 
Apostles,  might  have  thought  otherwise  than  truth  demand- 


(1,  vtmnnff  Hit**;  the  l*est  is  .John  Alberi,  of  the  Pious  Schools,  professor  in  the  university 
of  Pesth,  who  published,  in  1N20,  a fine  work  on  St  kct  Topics  or  Church  History. 


Digitized  by  y.oooie 


CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OF  BAPTISM.  135 


-eel ; which  happened  to  Cyprian,  as  all  of  us,  who  love  him, 
believe,  without  any  reproach  to  him.”  Those  who  banish 
this  controversy  from  the  domain  of  history  hold  that  the 
quality  of  authenticity  is  wanting  in  many  of  the  documents 
upon  which  we  rely  to  prove  its  reality ; for  instance,  in  the 
epistles  of  St.  Cyprian  to  the  bishops  of  Numidia,  to  Quin- 
tus, to  Jubajan,  to  Pompeius,  and  to  Magnus  ; in  the  Acte  of 
the  3rd  Council  of  Carthage,  and  in  the  epistle  of  Firmilian 
to  Cyprian.  The  works  of  St  Augustine  are  full  of  pas- 
sages which  show  that  he  regarded  the  cited  letters  of  Cyp- 
rian as  authentic,  nor  do  they  at  all  support  the  supposi- 
tion of  hypothesis  alleged  by  the  disbelievers  in  the  con- 
troversy. The  following,  taken  from  his  work  on  Baptism , 
b.  1,  c.  18,  would  alone  sufficiently  show  his  mind : “Great 
proofs  are  extant  in  the  letters  of  the  blessed  martyr  . . . for 
in  those  days  it  appeared  to  him,  and  to  nearly  eighty  of  his 
bishops  of  the  African  Church,  that  a man  who  had  been 
baptized  outside  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
ought  to  be  again  baptized  on  his  return  to  the  Church.” 
As  for  the  celebration  of  the  3rd  synod  of  Carthage,  the 
friends  of  the  imagination  theory  would  find  it  difficult  to 
prove  that  such  synod  was  not  held.  In  addition  to  the  tes- 
timony of  St.  Augustine  just  quoted,  v/e  have,  in  the  3rd  (took 
on  Baptism , “I  would  never  believe  that  in  a holy  synod  of 
his  colleagues,  Cyprian  would  utter  with  his  mouth  what 
he  did  not  feel  in  his  heart,”  and  the  context  shows  he 
speaks  of  the  3rd  synod.  And  St.  Jerome,  speaking  of 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  says  (1),  “ Consenting  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Cyprian  and  the  African  synod,  lie  sent  many  letters 
to  various  persons  in  regard  to  the  rebaptism  of  heretics.” 
As  for  the  authenticity  of  Firmilian’s  letter  to  St.  Cyprian, 
only  negative  arguments  can  be  adduced  against  it,  and  for 
it  we  have  the  positive  evidence  of  Eusebius,  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  and  St.  Basil  the  Great  (2). 

The  first  question  arising  from  the  controversy  on  re- 
baptism is  about  the  threat  of  excommunication  said  to 
have  been  made  by  Pope  Stephen  against  St.  Cyprian. 

(1)  Ecdertaxl lent  Writer*. 

(2)  For  a full  defence  of  the  authenticity  of  all  these  documents,  consult  Palma  ; Lectures , 
voL  1,  c.  28. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


136 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Was  such  a threat  really  made,  and  if  so,  was  it  put  into  ex- 
ecution ? The  saint  insinuates,  at  least,  that  the  threat  was 
uttered,  when,  in  his  74th  letter,  to  Pompeius,  he  asks  con- 
cerning Stephen,  “ Does  he  give  honor  to  God,  who  commu- 
nicates with  the  baptism  of  Marcion  ? Does  he  give  honor 
to  God,  who  asserts  that  remission  of  sin  is  given,  among 
those  who  blaspheme  God  ? Does  he  give  honor  to 
God,  who  declares  that  sons  can  be  born  to  God  outside, 
from  an  adulterous  and  fornicating  one  ? Does  he  give 
honor  to  God,  who,  not  regarding  the  unity  and  truth  de- 
rived from  divine  law,  defends  heresy  against  the  Church  ? 
Does  he  give  honor  to  God,  who,  a friend  to  heretics,  and 
an  enemy  of  Christians,  declares  that  the  priests  of  God, 
who  defend  the  truth  of  Christ  and  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
should  be  shunned  ?”  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (1)  says 
that  Pope  Stephen  wrote  a letter  “ concerning  Helenus,  Fir- 
milian,  and  all  the  bishops  of  Cilicia,  Cappadocia,  Galatia, 
and  the  neighboring  countries;  saying  that,  for  that  reason, 
he  would  not  wish  to  communicate  with  them.  ‘ For,’  said 
he, ‘they  rebaptize  heretics.’”  And  St.  Augustine  speaks 
more  strongly  (2) : “ When,  therefore,  Stephen  not  only 

did  not  rebaptize  heretics,  but  even  thought  that  they 
should  be  excommunicated,  who  did  so  or  allowed  it  to  be 
done ; nevertheless,  Cyprian  remained  with  him  in  the 
peace  of  unity.”  These  authors  certainly  say  that  Pope 
Stephen  threatened  the  rebaptizers  with  severance  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church,  but  there  is  good  reason  for 
concluding  that  such  a decree  was  not  issued.  The  last 
clause  of  St.  Augustine’s  testimony,  just  quoted,  is  explicit. 
Again,  an  excommunication  of  the  rebaptizers  by  Pope 
Stephen  would  have  furnished  Augustine  with  a fine  ar- 
gument against  the  Donatists,  but  in  none  of  his  writings 
against  them,  do  we  find  a hint  of  such  a thing.  On  the 
contrary,  in  the  book  on  Baptism  which  he  wrote  against 
those  sectaries,  we  find,  b.  5,  c.  25,  “ Stephen  had  thought 
that  they  should  be  avoided  who  tried  to  destroy  the  ancient 
manner  of  receiving  heretics.  However,  moved  by  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  question,  and  being  largely  gifted  with  the  bowels 

v ■»  <<*  Status,  in  t'uxcbius,  b.  7,  c.  5.  (2)  On  One  Baptism . against  Petflian,  14 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OF  BAPTISM.  1ST 


of  charity,  he  decided  to  remain  in  unity  with  those  who 

thought  differently the  peace  of  Christ  conquered  in 

their  hearts,  so  that  the  evil  of  schism  did  not  arise  be- 
tween them.”  St.  Cyprian  himself,  in  his  letter  to  Jubajan, 
declares  that  he  has  always  been  in  peace  with  his  col- 
leagues, and  this  would  not  be  true,  had  he  been  excommuni- 
cated by  the  Pontiff.  Those  who  believe  that  St.  Cyprian 
and  his  fellows  were  really  excommunicated,  rely  greatly 
upon  a passage  of  Firmilian.  in  which  he  says  to  . Cyprian, 
“ In  many  other  provinces,  there  is  great  diversity  of  opin- 
ion, and  yet  on  this  account,  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
Catholic  Church  were  not  broken.  Stephen  has  now  dared 
to  do  this,  breaking  that  peace  with  you,  which  his  prede- 
cessors always  preserved  with  you  in  love  and  mutual  honor.” 
But  these  and  similar  words,  with  which  the  letter  of  Fir- 
milian abounds,  do  not  necessarily  imply  an  issue  of  a formal 
decree ; they  might  well  refer  to  a mere  threat,  espe- 
cially when  we  consider  that  they  were  used  by  an  angry 
man.  “It  is  natural  to  angry  men,”  says  Alexandre,  in 
treating  of  this  objection,  “ to  speak  or  write  of  their  real  or 
fancied  injuries  as  far  greater  than  they  really  are.  Hence 
the  tragic  poet  sang,  ‘ The  angry  man  utters  only  mon- 
strosities/ ” The  whole  tenor  of  Firinilian’s  epistle  is  one 
of  impotent  rage  and  disappointment ; he  does  not  hesitate 
to  compare  the  Pontiff  to  Judas,  to  accuse  him  of  manifest 
foolishness,  to  charge  him  with  designating  St.  Cyprian  as 
a “ pseudo-Christ,”  and  an  “ unfaithful  laborer.”  No  matter 
how  holy  the  former  and  after  life  of  Firmilian  may  have 
been,  in  this  letter  he  certainly  abandoned  the  ways  of  truth, 
moderation,  and  charity,  and  we  may  reasonably  suppose 
that  his  anger  led  him  into  exaggeration.  When  we  compare 
his  assertion  (if  taken  literally  ) with  the  positive  testimonies 
of  Augustine  and  Cyprian  himself,  we  are  forced  to  deny  it 
credence.  Roncaglia,  in  an  endeavor  to  prove  that  St. 
Cyprian  was  really  excommunicated,  thinks  that  Firmilian’s 
declaration  may  be  reconciled  with  these  testimonies  by 
supposing  that  the  excommunication  was  withdrawn  by 
Pope  Stephen,  or  by  his  successor,  Sixtus.  Before  passing* 
toother  questions,  it  is  well  to  observe  here  that  St.  Cypriam 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


138  STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

never  incurred  the  stain  of  heresy,  although  he  erred  exceed- 
ingly. He  was  always  ready  to  bow  to  the  decisions  of  the 
Church,  and  again,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  he  regarded  the 
question  at  issue  as  one  of  discipline  rather  than  of  faith. 
The  following  passage  of  St  Augustine  well  shoWs  the  sin- 
cere yearning  of  Cyprian  for  truth,  and  his  solicitude  for 
unity  (1):  “ Very  often  a little  loss  is  revealed  to  the  Doc- 

tors, that  their  patient  and  humble  charity,  in  which  there 
is  greater  fruit,  may  be  tried ; either  as  to  the  way  of  pre- 
serving unity,  when  they  think  variously  on  the  more  ob- 
scure matters,  or  as  to  their  reception  of  the  truth,  when 
they  see  it  declared  in  a sense  contrary  to  what  they  thought. 
Of  these  two,  we  have  one  manifested  in  Blessed  Cyprian, 
that  is,  how  he  preserved  unity  with  those  from  whom  he 
differed.  For  he  says,  ‘judging  no  cne,  or  removing  no  one 
from  the  right  of  communion,  if  he  thinks  otherwise.*  And 
the  other,  that  is,  how  he  received  the  truth,  when  found 
contrary  to  what  he  had  deemed  it.  If  his  letters  do  not  re- 
cord it,  his  merits  proclaim  it ; if  the  epistle  is  not  found, 
the  crown  (of  martyrdom)  attests  it ; if  a council  of  bishops 
does  not  announce  it,  it  is  indicated  by  his  being  in  the  com- 
pany of  the  angels.  For  it  is  no  small  proof  of  a most 
pacific  soul,  to  have  merited  martyrdom  in  that  unity,  from 
which,  though  thinking  differently,  he  would  not  separate. 
For  we  are  men.  Hence  to  relish  a thing,  when  its  nature 
prohibits  it,  is  a trial  to  men.  But  to  love  one’s  own  opin- 
ion excessively,  or  to  grudge  their  ideas  to  the  more  justly 
thinking,  to  the  point  of  breaking  off  communion  and  founding 
a schism,  or  to  the  point  of  committing  the  sacrilege  of  her- 
esy, is  diabolic  presumption. Having  shed  his  blood, 

but  shed  it  in  unity,  (Cyprian)  attained  angelic  light  through 
the  confession  of  martyrdom,  so  that,  if  he  did  not  know  be- 
fore what  had  been  revealed,  he  knew  it  then,  because  he 
preferred  the  tie  of  unity  to  the  assertion  of  his  own  opin- 
ion.” 

The  question  now  arises  as  to  the  light  in  which 
the  controversy  was  viewed  by  St.  Cyprian,  Firmiliau, 
and  the  other  rebaptizers  of  the  time,  who  were  in 

(1)  Baptism*  against  the  Donatists .,  b,  2,  c.  5. 


Digitized  by  ^.ooQle 


139 


CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OF  BAPTISM. 

communion  with  them.  Did  they  regard  the  question 
as  one  of  faith,  or  of  discipline?  That  they  looked 
upon  it  as  a mere  matter  of  discipline,  is  easily  proved. 
In  the  epistle  sent  by  St.  Cyprian  and  his  brethren 
of  the  council  of  Carthage  to  Pope  Stephen,  we  read, 
“We  know  that  some  do  not  wish  to  lay  aside  what  they 
have  once  learned ; that  they  do  not  easily  change  their 
minds,  but  wish,  saving  the  tie  of  peace  and  concord  with 
their  colleagues,  to  retain  what  lias  been  practiced  among 
them.  In  which  matter,  we  do  violence  or  lay  down  a law 
to  no  one,  since  each  bishop  exercises  his  free  will  in  the 
Administration  of  his  church,  for  which  he  will  render  an 
account  to  the  Lord.”  But  no  bishop  is  free  to  act,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  opinion,  in  matters  of  faith ; the  fathers  of 
Carthage,  therefore,  regarded  the  controversy  as  one  of  dis- 
cipline. St.  Jerome  says  that  St.  Cyprian  never  anathema- 
tized, but  rather  always  communicated  with,  those  who  re- 
garded his  opinion  as  an  error ; if,  however,  the  saint  had 
thought  his  practice  to  be  of  faith,  he  could  not  have  pursued 
such  a course.  These  are  the  words  of  the  great  doctor 

(1):  “ However,  if  these  do  not  wish to  adduce  from 

the  Scriptures  those  texts  which  Blessed  Cyprian  has  left  in 
his  epistles,  concerning  the  rebaptism  of  heretics,  let  them 
know  that  he  never  proffered  such  sayings  together  with 

an  anathema  on  those  who  would  not  agree  with  him 

And  he  finished  the  address,  which  he  sent  to  Pope  Stephen 
on  the  matter,  with  these  words:  ‘ We  have  proffered  these 
things  to  your  conscience,  both  for  our  common  honor  and 
ior  pure  love,  believing  that  what  is  religious  and  true  will 
be  also  acceptable  to  you,  for  the  sake  of  your  own  religion 
and  faith  ’ ” (2). 

Blondel  and  other  Protestant  writers,  and  in  their  day, 

(1)  Dialogue  against  the  Luciftrian* , c.  9. 

(2)  If  St.  Cyprian  believed  that  the  question  was  one  of  faith,  the  deflnition  of  the  Afri- 
can synod  would  certainly  have  made  him  a schismatic,  which  is  not  to  be  supposed 
possible,  if  we  read  his  works.  He  could  not  be  defended  because  of  an  example  given 
by  previous  councils,  for  these  did  not  judge  of  matters  of  faith,  unless  with  the  an- 
tecedent consent  of  the  Church,  or  with  the  will  to  subject  their  decisions  to  the  Church’s 
judgment  In  his  f pistle  to  Juimjan,  St.  Cyprian  does  not  exclude  a converted  here- 
tic from  salvation,  even  though  he  he  not  “ rebaptized he  therefore  must  have  re- 
garded the  effects  of  the  old  baptism  as  yet  surviving,  and  therefore  he  must  have 
looked  upon  the  new  baptism,  for  which  he  contended,  as  merely  a disclpi.nnry 
practice.  It  is  certain  that  St.  Cyprian  did  not  hold  as  invalid  a baptism  conferred  by  a 
sinner ; therefore,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  he  regarded  as  valid  that  given  by 
a heretic.  See  Triumph  of  the  Holy  See , by  Cappellari  (Pope  Gregory  XVI  ),  chap.  20. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


140 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


some  Gallican  authors,  have  contended  that,  in  his  condem> 
nation  of  St.  Cyprian’s  error,  Pope  Stephen  rushed  into  the 
extreme  opposite  one  of  approving  every  heretical  baptism. 
How  false  this  accusation  is,  we  can  very  easily  show.  In 
his  epistle  to  St.  Cyprian,  Firmilian  says,  “ It  is  quite  ab- 
surd for  them  to  deem  it  unnecessary  to  inquire  as  to  who 
baptized  the  person,  saying  that  the  grace  can  be  attained 
by  the  invocation  of  the  Trinity  by  name,  that  is,  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.,,  Firmilian  therefore  sup- 
poses that  Stephen  insisted  upon  a certainty  as  to  the  use 
of  the  proper  form,  ere  he  would  declare  the  validity  of  a 
baptism.  Again,  we  know  from  Eusebius  that  the  Pontiff 
defended  the  ancient  practice  of  the  Church,  and  the  ancient 
practice  was  to  insist  upon  the  use  of  proper  form  and  mat- 
ter (1).  Again,  had  Pope  Stephen  fallen  into  any  error  in 
his  treatment  of  the  question,  Vincent  of  Lerins  could  not 
have  said  that  he  “ crushed  the  novelty,  and  sustained  the 
practice  of  antiquity  ” (2).  And  it  is  very  unlikely,  if  Stephen 
had  so  erred,  that  the  Council  of  Arles,  when  it  issued  a 
special  canon  against  the  rebaptizers,  would  have  omitted 
to  notice  the  opposite,  and  far  more  dangerous,  heresy. 
Finally,  if  the  Pontiff  fell  into  such  error,  then  the  Church 
had  erred  through  her  entire  extent,  and  therefore  disappear- 
ed from  the  earth,  which  no  Gallican,  even  in  the  palmiest 
days  of  his  school,  would  admit  to  be  possible.  Certainly, 
at  the  time  of  the  controversy  as  to  rebaptism,  the  entire 
episcopacy  received  either  the  definition  of  Pope  Stephen  or 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian,  and  both,  in  the  supposition  of 
Stephen’s  fall,  had  wandered  from  the  truth.  The  temera- 
rious Launoy,  in  accordance  with  his  system,  which  gained 
for  him  the  title  of  “ un-nicher  of  the  saints”  (3),  drew  up  a 
series  of  what  seemed  to  him  terrible  objections  to  the 
sanctity  of  Pope  Stephen,  and  proofs  that  he  had  erred  in 
the  matter  of  St.  Cy prian.  Thus,  he  said,  the  Church  always 
thought  much  more  of  Cyprian  than  of  Stephen.  Hear  the 
praises  which  the  fathers  lavish  upon  Cyprian,  and  note  how 

(1)  History,  b.  7,  c.  3.  (2)  Commonitory. 

(8)  The  pastor  of  the  church  of  St.  Roch,  at  Parts,  used  to  say,  “ Whenever  I meet  M. 
Launoy,  I make  him  a profound  bow,  for  fear  that  he  will  yet  deprive  me  of  my  deaf 
Bt.  Roch.” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  THE  REPETITION  OP  BAPTISM.  141 


seldom  they  speak  of  the  Pontiff.  In  the  Canon  of  the  Mass, 
we  have  the  name  of  Cyprian,  not  the  other.  In  the  ancient 
Litanies  of  the  Roman  Ordo  and  of  the  Rituals  of  the 
Churches  of  Gaul,  Cyprians  name  occurs,  but  never  Ste- 
phen's. In  the  Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  and  the  olden 
Missals,  we  read  a proper  Preface  for  the  Feast  of  Sts.  Cor- 
nelius and  Cyprian,  but  there  is  none  for  the  Feast  of  St. 
Stephen.  Anastasius,  the  Librarian,  in  his  Life  of  Stephen, 
mentioning  the  Constitutions  of  the  Pontiff,  is  silent  as  to  the 
baptismal  decree,  as  though,  at  Rome,  where  he  wrote,  they 
were  ashamed  of  the  Popes  course  of  action.  All  these  al- 
legations of  Launoy  simply  show  that  St.  Cyprian  was  more 
venerated  than  St.  Stephen  was ; how  a man  of  Launoy  s 
acumen  could  draw  from  them  any  argument  against  the 
Pontiff’s  faith,  is  one  of  the  many  mysteries  furnished  by 
the  devotees  of  Gallicanism  and  by  those  of  many  other 
“ isms.” 

It  has  been  also  asserted  that  Pope  St.  Stephen  decreed 
that  baptism  was  valid  when  conferred  only  in  the  name  of 
Christ.  We  must  at  once  observe  that  both  ancient  and 
modern  writers  very  frequently  use  the  phrase  “ in  the 
name  of  Christ,”  when  they  really  mean  to  signify  the 
names  of  the  three  Divine  Persons ; and  the  context,  either 
direct  or  remote,  will  always  show,  if  they  are  treating  of 
sacramental  forms,  that  the  names  of  the  Father  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  understood.  To  prove  that  Pope  Stephen  erred 
in  this  matter,  it  must  be  shown  that  he  allowed  the  names 
of  the  Father  and  Holy  Ghost  to  be  omitted  from  the  bap- 
tismal form,  and  that  is  impossible.  It  is  true  that  a testi- 
mony to  this  effect  can  be  adduced,  which  at  first  sight  may 
seem  conclusive,  but,  as  we  shall  show,  it  must  be  rejected. 
St.  Cyprian  received  from  Jubajan  an  epistle  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Pope  Stephen.  In  his  73rd  letter,  Cyprian 
declares  that  he  had  read  in  that  epistle  a definition  to  the 
effect  that  baptism  in  the  sole  name  of  Christ  was  valid, 
and  he  refutes  the  assertion.  In  answering  this  objection, 
we  might  say,  with  Alexandre,  that  the  holy  bishop  of  Car- 
thage did  not  “ penetrate  the  mind  ” of  the  Pontiff;  that 
Stephen  by  the  phrase  “ in  the  name  of  Christ  ” meant  bap- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


142 


STUDIES  IN  -CUUliCH  HISTORY. 


tism  as  instituted  by  Christ,  and  therefore  conferred  in  the 
proper  way.  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  so  perspica- 
cious a mind  as  that  of  Cyprian  would  not  have  been  able 
to  penetrate  the  meaning  of  the  Pope,  or  that  so  good  a 
theologian  would  not  have  recognized  the  true  meaning,  if 
it  were  couched  under  a common  form  of  expression.  The 
most  conclusive  reply  is  that  the  epistle  read  by  St.  Cyp- 
rian was  not  written  by  St.  Stephen.  The  Pontiff  wrote 
indeed  to  the  Primate  of  Africa,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  he 
would  have  written,  in  such  unsettled  and  difficult  times,  to 
the  bishop  of  an  obscure  place  in  the  remote  wilds,  and 
there  is  no  record  of  such  an  epistle.  St.  Cyprian  does 
not  ascribe  it  to  Stephen,  nor  say  anything  which  would 
indicate  that  he  regarded  him  as  its  author,  which  he  would 
have  scarcely  omitted  to  do,  had  there  been  any  foundation 
for  such  a belief. 

The  opponents  of  Papal  infallibility  used  to  cite  this  dif- 
ference of  opinion  between  Sts.  Stephen  and  Cyprian  as 
favorable  to  their  theory,  but  how  they  could  derive  any  ad- 
vantage from  it  we  cannot  perceive,  since  it  is  evident  that 
both  parties  regarded  the  question  as  pertaining,  not  to 
faith,  but  to  discipline.  We  may  observe,  however,  that  be- 
fore the  question  of  rebaptism  arose,  St.  Cyprian  often  ac- 
knowledged the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  Apostolic  See 
in  explicit  and  reverential  terms.  Thus,  when  writing  to 
Pope  Cornelius  against  the  schismatic  Felicissimus,  who 
had  opposed  his  elevation  to  the  see  of  Carthage,  he  said, 
“ They  dare  to  approach  the  chair  of  Peter,  and  to  bear, 
from  schismatics  and  the  profane,  letters  to  the  principal 
Church,  from  which  is  derived  the  sacerdotal  dignity  ; not 
thinking  that  they  (the  Roman  clergy)  are  those  Romans 
whose*  faith  the  Apostle  praised,  and  to  whom  perfidy  can 
have  no  access.”  And  in  his  letter  to  Antonianus,  “ You 
asked  me  to  send  a copy  of  your  letter  to  our  colleague 
Cornelius,  that,  all  anxiety  laid  aside,  he  might  know  that 
you  communicate  with  him,  that  is,  with  the  Catholic 
Churgh.”  Speaking  to  Pope  Cornelius,  he  says,  “We  ex- 
horted them  to  acknowledge  and  hold  to  the  root  and 
matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church that  all  our  col- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


SAMOSATIAN  HERESY,  AND  COUNCIL  OF  ANTIOCH.  143 

leagues  should  cling  to  thee  and  thy  communion,  that  is, 
to  the  unity  and  charity  of  the  Catholic  Church.’’  In  his 
epistle,  he  requests  Pope  Stephen  to  use  his  authority 
against  Marcian,  bishop  of  Arles,  who  had  become  a Nova- 
tian.  And  in  the  entire  controversy  on  rebaptism,  he  never  i 
calls  the  authority  of  the  Pontiff  into  question,  although  he  ' 
laments  the  injustice  of  the  decision.  If  Cyprian  was  after-  * 
wards  guilty  of  disobedience,  we  can  only  say  that  God  per- 
mitted it  for  his  correction.  That  he  afterwards  came  to 
his  senses  is  more  than  probable,  although  no  documents 
give  us  the  particulars  of  his  recantation.  The  constant 
devotion  of  the  Roman  Church  to  his  memory,  and  his  own 
sacrifice  of  life  for  the  faith,  would  prove  that  when  he  died, 
he  was  not  at  variance  with  the  chief  pastor  of  the  fold. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  SAMOSATIAN  HERESY,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  ANTIOCH. 

Paul,  called  Samosatenus,  from  his  native  place,  Samosa- 
ta,  a village  of  the  Euphratesian  Syria,  was  made  bishop 
of  Antioch  about  the  year  262,  during  the  reign  of  the  em- 
perors Valerian  and  Galienus.  Before  his  elevation  he  was 
poor,  even  to  mendicancy,  but  he  soon  acquired  immense 
wealth  by  means  of  oppression,  sacrilege,  and  other  wicked- 
ness. The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  before  wdiom 
he  was  accused  of  heresy  in  the  year  264,  say  that  he  was  ex- 
ceedingly fond  of  parade.  “Carried  away,  beyond  all 
measure,  by  love  of  parade,  and  by  his  arrogance,  he  bore 
secular  dignities,  and  preferred  to  be  styled  a ducenturion 
(1)  rather  than  a bishop.  He  pompously  strutted  through 
the  forum,  openly  and  publicly  reading,  and  dictating  his 
correspondence  as  he  promenaded,  preceded  and  followed 
by  an  immense  retinue ; thus,  through  his  luxury  and 
haughtiness,  the  envy  and  hatred  of  many  were  excited 

fl)  The  text  has  duccnariu which  cnn  inenn  either  the  cc^  ^iiuer  of  lv.\,  hundred 
soldiers,  or  a man  possessing  200,000  sesterces. 


% 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


144 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Against  our  faith  ” (1).  His  sermons  were  calculated  solely 
to  win  glory  and  fame  for  the  orator ; hence,  continue  his 
fellow-bishops,  “ He  scolded  and  insulted  those  who  listened 
with  the  gravity  and  modesty  which  beseem  the  house  of 
God,  and  who  did  not  loudly  applaud,  as  they  do  in  the 
theatres,  nor  imitate  his  friends  of  both  sexes  in  their 
shouts  and  leapings.”  After  this,  we  need  not  be  surprised 
to  learn  that  “ He  picked  to  pieces  the  dead  doctors  of  our 
law,  but  spoke  of  himself  in  grandiloquent  terms,  not  as 
a bishop  ought  to  speak,  but  like  a sophist  and  an  impos- 
tor,. He  abolished  the  singing  of  the  Psalms  which  were 
always  sung  in  honor  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  placed 
a band  of  women  in  the  middle  of  the  church  to  sing  cer- 
tain Psalms  in  his  own  praise.  And  these  persons  who 

sing  Psalms  in  his  honor, call  him  an  angel,  come 

down  from  heaven  ” His  morals  could  not  have  been  of  a 
very  ascetic  nature,  for  the  Antiochian  prelates  tell  us  that 
he  was  always  accompanied  by  two  beautiful  women,  and 
that  he  allowed  his  clergy,  if  they  desired  it,  the  constant 
society  of  certain  females  whom  they  called  “Sisters.”  It 
would  seem  that  Paul’s  heresy,  like  many  others,  could  not 
come  into  the  world  without  the  connivance  or  prompting 
of  some  members  of  the  fair  sex,  for  it  was  to  please  no  less 
a personage  than  the  celebrated  “ queen  of  the  East,” 
Zenobia,  that  he  made  his  first  inroads  upon  the  deposit  of 
faith.  This  beautiful  and  talented  princess  was  a Jewess, 
and  from  the  time  of  her  marriage  to  Odanathus,  prince  of 
Palmyra,  cultivated  the  acquaintance  of  learned  men.  Paul, 
the  Christian  bishop  of  Antioch,  was  as  erudite  as  any  she 
met,  and  he  possessed  a certain  eloquence  and  dictatorial 
manner  which  captivated  her.  He  was  not  the  man  to 
forego  the  advantages  of  a friend  at  court,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  an  intimacy  which  led  him  to  please  the  Jewess 
by  disguising  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

His  first  and  capital  error  was  that  Christ  did  not  exist 
before  His  birth  from  Mary.  When  Christ  was  conceived, 
said  he,  the  Word  descended  to  dwell  in  Him,  and  by  this 
temporal  mission,  became  the  Son.  Nevertheless,  Christ 

(1)  Synodical  Epistle. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


8AM0SATIAN  HERESY,  AND  COUNCIL  OP  ANTIOCH.  145 

was  eternal,  by  predestination.  The  fathers  of  the  Council 
of  Antioch  say  that  “ He  refused  to  confess  with  us  that 

the  Son  descended  from  heaven Nor  is  this  simply 

our  assertion ; it  is  declared  more  than  once  in  the  records 
which  we  have  sent  to  you, . especially  where  he  says  that 

Jesus  Christ  had  His  origin  from  the  earth having 

abjured  the  mystery  of  our  religion,  he  passed  to  the  ex- 
ecrable heresy  of  Artemas  ” (1).  From  this  error,  Paul  log- 
ically drew  that  of  two  Persons  in  Christ,  one  by  nature, 
the  other  by  adoption.  Of  this  heresy,  St.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  wrote  to  him,  saying,  “Thou  sayest  there  are 
two  hypostases,  and  two  Persons  in  the  One  and  Only 
Christ,  and  two  Christs  and  two  Sons ; one  by  nature  the 
Son  of  God,  who  was  before  all  time,  and  one,  the  Son  of 
David,  who  was  not  before,  but  who,  by  the  pleasure  of 
God,  took  the  name  of  Son,  as  a city  takes  the  name  of  its 
lord,  and  a house  the  name  of  its  builder/’  Other  errors, 
consequent  upon  these,  Paul  developed  in  a list  of  Questions 
sent  by  him  to  Dionysius.  Christ  was  by  nature  a man 
like  ourselves;  the  hypostasis  of  the  Word  and  the  Cruci- 
fied are  not  the  same ; He  who  hungered,  thirsted,  labored, 
Ac.,  was  not  God.  His  next  error  was  akin  to  that  of  Sabel- 
lius,  and  must  have  been  especially  pleasing  to  Zenobia. 
He  explicitly  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  asserting 
that  the  Word  was  not  a Person,  distinct  from  the  Father, 
but  merely  the  efficiency  of  the  Father.  Speaking  of  this 
doctrine,  St.  Epiphanius  says  (2) : “ The  opinion  of  Paul  is 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God ; the 
Word  and  His  Spirit  are  perpetually  in  God,  as  his  own 
word  is  in  the  heart  of  man ; the  Son  of  God  has  no  subsist- 
ence by  Himself,  but  subsists  in  God.  The  Word  of  God, 
coming  into  the  world,  dwelt  in  Jesus,  who  was  a mere 

man.  Thus,  he  says,  God  is  one that  one  God  is  the 

Father,  and  the  Son  is  in  Him,  as  the  word  is  in  man.” 
The  points  of  difference  between  the  Samosatian  doctrine 
and  that  of  Sabellius  and  Nestorius,  are  given  as  fol- 

n)  Artemas  was  a heretic  of  the  2d  century,  who  taught  that  Christ  was  a mere  m&au 
Eusebius  speaks  of  him  in  his  Hist.,  b.  7,  c.  22. 

<2)  Heresies,  65. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


146 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


lows  by  Leontius  (1) : “ He  erred  as  to  the  Divinity  and  the 
Incarnation.  As  to  the  Divinity,  because  he  acknowledged 
only  the  Father.  As  to  the  Incarnation,  because  he  assert- 
ed that  Christ  was  merely  a man nor  did  he  teach 

the  same  as  Nestorius ; for  although  Nestorius  said  that 
Christ  was  simply  a man,  yet  he  acknowledged  as  dwelling 
in  Him  the  Word  and  Son  of  God,  who  subsists  by  Him- 
self. For  Nestorius  erred  in  nothing  as  to  the  Trinity. 
But  Paul  of  Samosata  did  not  acknowledge  in  Christ  the 
Word  of  God  which  subsists  by  Itself ; he  called  the  Word 
a something  ordered,  that  is,  God  commanded  (as  he  ex- 
pressed the  idea)  what  He  wished  to  be  done  through  that 
man  and  did  perform  through  him.  Nor  was  the  opinion 
of  Paul,  as  to  the  Divinity,  that  of  Sabellius.  For  Sabelli- 
us  said  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  were  the 
same ; he  called  God  a Being  of  three  names,  and  admitted 
no  Trinity  whatever ; while  Paul  did  not  say  that  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  were  the  same,  but  asserted 
that  the  Father  was  the  God  who  created  all  things,  the 
.Son  being  a mere  man,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  the  gift  that 
descended  upon  the  apostles.”  Paul  also  erred  as  to  the 
formula  of  Baptism;  at  least,  his  followers  did.  Hence 
the  Council  of  Nice,  in  its  nineteenth  canon,  decreed  that 
the  Paulianists  (as  they  were  generally  called)  should  be 
baptized,  when  they  applied  for  admission  into  the  fold. 

Against  the  heretical  bishop  of  Antioch  a synod  was  held 
in  the  year  264,  during  the  Pontificate  of  Pope  Dionysius. 
Among  the  more  celebrated  prelates  who  attended  it,  were 
St.  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea  and  Firmilian  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia  ; St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  excused  himself 
on  account  of  sickness  and  old  age.  Paul  disguised  his 
opinions,  and  protested  that  the  alleged  doctrines  were  not 
his ; the  bishops  therefore  contented  themselves  with  con- 
demning the  heresies,  without  pronouncing  any  censure 
against  him.  But  Paul  soon  began  to  teach  his  errors  so 
openly  that  evasion  was  no  longer  possible,  and  in  another 
Bynod,  held  in  the  year  270,  he  was  condemned  and  deposed 
from  his  see.  Then  was  witnessed  the  curious  spectacle  of 

(1)  On  tin  Sects,  actum  6. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


SAMOSATIAN  HERESY,  AND  COUNCIL  OF  ANTIOCH.  147 


an  appeal  to  a Pagan  emperor,  made  by  Catholic  bishops 
against  a rebellious  brother.  Paul f refused  to  yield  up 
the  temporalities  of  the  diocese  to  his  successor,  Donums, 
and  the  bishops  of  the  province  applied  to  Aurelian  for  his 
ejectment.  The  emperor  entertained  the  appeal,  and  gave  the 
very  just  decision  that  the  temporalities  should  be  secured 
to  whomsoever  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  the  Christian  bishops 
of  the  Italian  province  should  designate  as  legitimate  bish- 
op of  Antioch  (1).  Sympathizing  more  or  less  with  all  of  the 
early  heretics,  Mosheiin  (2)  tries  to  justify  Paul,  or  rather, 
since  that  would  be  too  difficult  a task,  to  cast  suspicion 
upon  the  motives  of  those  who  condemned  him.  He  ignorea 
any  zeal  for  truth  on  their  part,  and  supposes  that  they 
were  actuated  by  envy  of  Paul’s  wealth,  and  by  jealousy  of 
his  influence.  If  the  Protestant  historian  could  bring  forth 
any  documents  or  any  substantial  reasons  for  this  suspic- 
ion, we  might  abstain  from  accusing  him  of  pure  malicious- 
ness, but,  as  it  is,  the  records  of  the  time  are  against  him, 
and  the  characters  6f  so  many  of  the  subscribers  to  the  Acts 
of  the  synod  are  of  proven  sanctity,  that  we  need  do  no 
more  than  refer  to  him  as  another  instance  of  historical 
acumen  rendered  null  by  party  spirit. 

Coming  now  to  an  important  question  which  arises  from 
a perusal  of  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  we  must 
first  draw  attention  to  one  of  Paul’s  prime  sophisms.  If 
Jesus  did  not  become  God,  he  said,  He  is  not  consubstan- 
tial  to  the  Father,  and  hence  there  are  three  substances,  one 
principal,  and  two  derivative  (3).  Now  since  it  is  because 
the  Son  is  consubstantial  to  the  Father,  that  there  are  not 
three  substances,  the  argument  of  Paul  is  absurd,  if  he 
used  the  term  ‘'consubstantial”  as  we  now  use  it.  St. 
Athanasius  has  been  said  to  have  believed  that  the  fathers 
of  Antioch  rejected  the  word  “ consubstantial,”  and  that 
they  did  so,  taking  the  word  in  another  sense,  in  which  it 
might  have  been  used  by  Paul,  namely,  that  there  were 
three  substances  formed  from  one  pre-existing  materia.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  prelates  assembled 

(1)  Eusebius  ; Hist.,  b.  7,  c.  523.  Theodoret  ; Fables , b.  2, 1 85. 

(21  Hist.  Christy  sect.  C,  §35.  (3)  Flkury;  History , b.  8,  n.  1. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


148 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


at  Antioch  formally  taught  that  the  Son  of  God  is  equal 
and  co-eternal  with  the  Father.  We  now  proceed  to  exam- 
ine the  question,  whether  or  not  the  fathers  of  Antioch  re- 
jected the  term  homoomios , “ consubstantial,”  because  Paul 
of  Samosata  had  so  abused  it  as  to  deceive  many,  even  well 
meaning  persons.  This  term,  as  we  shall  afterwards  see, 
became,  during  the  progress  of  Arianism,  the  test,  as  it 
were,  of  orthodoxy,  and  the  opponents  of  the  true  doctrine 
on  the  Incarnation  were  fond  of  citing  this  synod  of 
Antioch  as  favorable  to  their  heresy  (1).  To  show  that  it 
was  a moral  impossibility  for  the  fathers  of  Antioch  to  re- 
ject the  term  “ consubstantial,’  it  is  only  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  events  which  happened  at  Alexandria,  scarcely  ten 
years  before  the  celebration  of  their  synod,  on  account  of  a 
reported  unwillingness  of  Dionysius  to  accept  the  term. 
This  holy  bishop  had  been  accused,  before  Pope  Dionysius, 
of  this  hesitancy,  by  certain  Pentapolitans,  who  declared 
that  he  “ styled  the  Son  a creature,  and  not  consubstantial 
to  the  Father.”  Having  called  a synod  at  Rome,  the  Pon- 
tiff wrote  to  the  Alexandrian  bishop,  asserting  the  neces- 
sity of  the  term  in  question.  Indignant  at  the  accusation,  the 
prelate  repelled  it  in  the  strongest  of  language,  and  to  fur- 
ther clear  himself,  sent  to  the  Pope  four  of  his  books,  which 
plainly  proved  that  he  held  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son, 
and  received  the  term  homoomion  as  a test  of  the  doctrine. 
Now,  is  it  at  all  probable  that  so  many  learned  and  holy  bish- 
ops, as  were  those  assembled  at  Antioch,  would,  not  ten  years 
afterwards,  have  sent  to  this  very  Pontiff  Dionysius,  during 
the  life  too  of  the  very  prelate  whom  he  had  ordered  to  re- 
ceive the  term,  a synodical  epistle  which  rejected  the  word 
homoomion  ? Again,  would  not  the  Antiochian  fathers  have 
seemed  demented,  if,  while  condemning  an  impious  and 
most  dangerous  heresy,  they  rejected  the  very  term  which, 
of  all  possible  terms,  most  conclusively  indicated  the 
one  true  doctrine  ? And  how  is  it  that  the  Arians  never  ob- 
jected that  the  term  had  been  rejected  at  Antioch  ? It  would 
have  been  an  excellent  argument  for  their  cause,  they  never 

(1)  The  student  will  find  this  question  treated  most  thoroughly  In  the  work  of  Marmn  on 
the  “ Divinity  of  our  Lord  J.  ( .,  Manifested  in  Scripture  and  Tradition b.  4,  c.  9§. 
We  shall  merely  give  a synopsis  of  this  author’s  argumentation. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


8AM0SATIAN  HERESY,  AND  COUNCIL  OF  ANTIOCH.  149 

missed  a chance,  and  yet  they  never  alleged  even  a suspicion 
of  such  a thing.  No  such  assertion  was  ever  made  until 
nearly  ninety  years  had  elapsed  since  the  holding  of  the 
aynod,  and  then  it  was  made  by  the  Semiarians  at  the 
synod  of  Ancyra,  in  the  year  358.  And  although  it  was 
-greatly  to  the  interest  of  these  Semiarians  to  prove  their 
assertion,  yet  it  always  remained  a simple  assertion,  without 
an  attempt  at  proof.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  who  certainly  was  not  very  hostile  to  the  Arians, 
while  commemorating  the  anti-Nicene  writers  who  received 
the  term  komoousvm , says  that  he  found  none  who  rejected 
it,  hnd  in  his  seventh  book  he  gives  us  that  part  of  the 
Synodical  Epistle  of  Antioch  which  alone  has  come  down  to 
us.  And  in  that  portion,  nothing  can  be  gathered  which 
would  give  rise  to  the  slightest  suspicion  that  in  the  lost 
part  there  was  a rejection  of  the  terra.  Finally,  the  Anti- 
ochian fathers  could  not,  in  their  epistle,  have  rejected  a 
word,  the  use  of  which  they  defend  in  their  Symbol  (1). 

Those  who  contend  that  the  term  homooimos  was  rejected 
-at  Antioch,  rely  upon  certain  passages  of  Sts.  Hilary,  Atha- 
nasius, and  Basil,  in  trying  to  defend  their  position.  But 
St  Hilary  does  not  assert  the  rejection  of  the  word,  as  his 
own  opinion  ; he  simply  proffers  t1'©  objection  as  coming 
from  the  Semiarians.  The  same  may  be  said  of  St.  Atha- 
nasius, for,  in  treating  of  the  objection,  he  says,  in  paren- 
thesis, “as  they  say,  for  I have  not  a copy  of  the  epistle,” 
-and  he  shortly  adds,  “If  I possessed  a copy  of  the  epistle* 
which  they  say  the  fathers  wrote,  I believe  I would  find 
several  reasons  why  they  may  have  been  forced  to  write  in 
such  a manner.”  As  for  St.  Basil,  he  certainly  says,  in  his 
52nd  epistle,  that  some  excuse  may  be  made  for  those  who 
receive  the  Nicene  decrees,  excepting  the  word  “ consub- 
stantial,”  because  “ those  who  met  in  the  case  of  Paul  of 
Samosata  condemned  the  term  as  less  apt  and  convenient.” 
If  such  was  St.  Basil’s  opinion,  then  ho  showed  much  con- 
fidence in  the  Semiarian  assertion,  but  his  solitary  judgment 
is  of  little  weight  when  compared  with  the  arguments  we 
have  adduced. 

(1)  This.  Symbol  is  found  in  Hardouin,  CouncU»%  vol.  1,  p.  1089,  and  the  erudite  entertain 
mo  doubt  as  to  Its  genuineness. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


150 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  CONVERSION  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE. 

Eusebius  tells  us,  in  his  Life  of  Constantine,  that  while 
that  emperor  was  marching  on  Rome  to  meet  the  tyrant 
Maxentius  (310),  and  was  reflecting  upon  the  difficulty  of 
his  undertaking,  he  remembered  that  his  father.  Constantius 
Chlorus,  worshipped  only  one  God,  and  that,  unlike  most  of 
the  Roman  emperors,  he  was  a happy  man.  Constantine 
therefore  resolved  to  devote  his  -worship  to  the  one  only 
God,  and  “ he  T)egan,”  says  Eusebius,  in  chap.  28,  “ to  im- 
plore His  aid,  beseeching  Him  to  make  Himself  known  un- 
to him,  and  to  extend  His  helping  hand  to  the  present  en- 
terprise.” Then  occurred  that  signal  miracle  of  the  appear- 
ance of  a cross  in  the  sky,  and  Christ’s  manifestation  of 
Himself  to  Constantine  on  the  following  night.  Our  Lord 
explained  the  meaning  of  the  miracle  to  the  emperor,  or- 
dered him  to  adopt  the  cross  as  his  standard,  and  promised 
him  victory.  Constantine  then  sent  for  some  Christian 
priests,  and  having  acquired  the  rudiments  of  Christian 
doctrine,  was  enrolled  among  the  catechumens.  The  fol- 
lowing are  the'words  of  the  historian:  “A  wonderful  sign, 
sent  by  God,  appeared  to  the  emperor  as  he  was  simply 
praying.  If  the  event  were  narrated  by  any  other  person,  it 
would  not  easily  be  believed.  But  since  the  august  victor 
himself  told  it  to  us,  wrho  write  this  history,  some  time 
after  it  happened  ; when,  that  is,  wre  had  become  familiar 
with  him  ; and  since  he  attested  the  declaration  with  his 

oath,  who  can  hesitate  in  believing  it?.  . About  the 

middle  of  the  day,  as  the  sun  was  turning  to  the  west,  he 
saw,  with  his  own  eyes,  he  asserted,  immediately  over  the 
sun,  a figure  of  the  cross  made  up  of  light,  and  with  it  the 
inscription  4 Ert  touto  nihi  (In  this,  conquer).  At  this  vision, 
both  he  and  the  soldiers,  who  wrere  following  him  on  I 
know  not  what  journey,  and  were  witnesses  of  the  miracle, 
were  thoroughly  stupefied.”  Many  Pagan  authors  are  men- 
tioned by  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  (1),  as  rejecting  this  vision  of 

(1)  Gnuuil  ttf  \icf%  b.  1.  c.  4. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE. 


161 


Constantine  as  false  or  imaginary,  and  as  a rule,  Protes- 
tants are  too  averse  to  any  admission  of  miracles,  to  receive 
this  one  as  authentic.  That  Voltaire  should  rank  the  story 
among  fables  (1),  is  not  surprising.'  If  a wish  to  disbelieve 
be  any  reason  for  rejecting  an  assertion,  then  those  who 
are  incredulous  as  to  this  miracle  are  not  unreasonable.  As 
for  any  more  solid  argument  against  it,  the  rules  of  criti- 
cism furnish  none.  Eusebius  is  not  alone  in  his  narration, 
and  even  if  he  were,  his  authority  would  be  great  indeed, 
living,  as  he  did,  at  the  time  it  is  said  to  have  happened, 
and  publishing  it,  as  he  did,  in  the  hearing  of  those  whom 
he  declares  to  have  been  witnesses  to  it.  What  about  the 
oath  of  Constantine  ? What  about  the  coins  and  medals 
struck  by  Constantine  in  commemoration  of  the  vision,  and 
which  have  come  down  to  us  ? But  Eusebius  is  corroborat- 
ed by  two  Pagan  authors,  one,  the  famous  orator,  Nazarius, 
the  other  anonymous  (2)!  The  story  of  the  vision  is  also 
given  by  the  author  of  the  book  on  “ The  Deaths  of  the 
Persecutors  ” and  by  Optatian  Porphyry,  the  poet.  Pru- 
dentius,  Socrates,  Sozomenus,  and  Theodoret,  all  agree  in 
believing  in  its  truth.  And  of  no  small  value  as  an  argu- 
ment of  its  authenticity  is  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  the  mili- 
tary insignia  of  the  early  Christian  emperors,  and  on  many 
•of  the  public  monuments  of  the  day. 

We  now  approach  the  question  as  to  where  and  when 
Constantine  received  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  The  great 
mass  of  authors,  until  within  the  last  two  centuries,  held 
that  he  was  baptized  at  Rome  about  the  year  324,  by  Pope 
Sh  Sylvester.  The  popular  tradition  in  the  Eternal  City 
has  always  been  to  that  effect.  One  of  the  principal  com- 
plaints made  by  the  enemies  of  Cola  di  Rienzo  in  1347,  was 
that  he  had  been  guilty  of  profanation,  by  bathing  in  the 
sacred  font  of  Constantine.  But  the  weight  of  evidence  is 
too  much  for  this  tradition,  and  goes  to  show  that  the  em- 
peror was  baptized  only  at  the  close  of  his  life,  and  in  the 
suburbs  of  Nicomedia.  The  principal  defenders  of  the  Ni- 
eomedian  baptism  are  Mamaclii,  Papebrock,  Henri  de  Va- 

(1)  Essay  on  General  History , e.  5. 

(2)  Their  stories  are  found  in  the  Parisian  edition  of  Pliny’s  Epistles,  of  1590. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


152 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


lois,  Pagi,  Aeneas  Silvius,  Alexandre,  Mosheim,  and  Palmar 
Among  the  modern  approvers  of  the  Roman  baptism  the- 
chief  place  is  held  by  Baronio.  But  though  it  is  more 
probable  tuat  Constantine’s  baptism  was  deferred  until  he 
was  about  to  die,  it  would  be  incorrect  to  say  that  he  was 
at  heart  a Pagan  up  to  that  time,  as  some  have  asserted. 
This  accusation  must  be  repelled,  before  we  treat  of  his 
baptism.  As  Mosheim  notes,  the  facts,  laws,  and  institu- 
tions of  his  reign,  show  that  Constantine  had  embraced  the 
Christian  religion  with  his  whole  soul.  All  his  efforts  were 
for  the  establishment  of  that  faith,  and  for  the  destruction 
of  Paganism  In  the  interests  of  Christianity,  he  changed 
nearly  the  entire  system  of  Roman  jurisprudence  ; he  rich- 
ly endowed  the  bishops  and  priests,  and  provided  in  every 
way  for  the  splendor  and  accuracy  of  divine  worship.  From 
the  day  of  his  vision,  he  constantly  praised  and  worshipped 
Christ ; he  brought  up  his  children  in  the  faith.  It  is  fool- 
ish to  object  certain  events  of  his  life  as  abhorrent  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel.  Thus,  the  killing  of  his  son  Crispus 
and  the  execution  of  his  own  wife  Fausta  (1),  his  vanity  and 
voluptuousness,  do  not  militate  against  his  Christianity. 
Are  there  no  bad  Christians?  Of  no  value  to  the  theory  of 
Constantine’s  persistent  Paganism,  especially  when  com- 
pared with  the  known  facts  of  his  life,  is  the  passage  of 
Eusebius  where  he  is  said  to  have  “ first  merited  to  receive 
the  imposition  of  hands  with  solemn  prayer  ” at  Nicome- 
dia.  For  these  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  only 
then  Constantine  became  a catechumen;  there  were  several 
impositions  of  hands  upon  the  candidate,  ere  he  finally  re- 
ceived baptism.  Nor  is  it  at  all  unlikely  that  a man  in 
Constantine's  elevated  position  would  not  have  been  sub- 
jected to  all  the  ceremonies  usually  adopted  at  an  induction 
among  the  catechumens  ; in  which  case,  the  passage  of  Eu- 
sebius is  at  once  understood.  We  know  from  Eusebius 
himself  that  the  emperor  was  present  at  the  divine  services, 
that  he  kept  the  Lord’s  Day  and  the  feasts  of  the  martyrs, 
that  he  fasted  at  the  appointed  times,  that  he  kept  the  vig- 

(1)  Crispus  was  accused  of  high  treason,  and  of  attempted  outrage  on  herself  by  Faulted 
his  stepmother.  The  emperor  revenged  him  by  ordering  Fausta’s  death. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE.  15$ 

il  of  Easter,  <fcc. ; we  know  too  that  he  allowed  himself  to  be 
excluded  from  all  in  which  catechumens  could  not  partici- 
pate. He  must,  therefore,  have  been  a catechumen  long 
before  the  journey  to  Nicomedia,  and  in  the  quoted  passage 
of  Eusebius,  the  phrase  “first  merited”  applies  to  the  last 
and  final  imposition  of  hands  before  baptism.  Arguments 
for  the  theory  of  Constantine’s  continued  Paganism  have 
been  found  in  the  restoration  of  the  temple  of  Concord  at 
Rome,  in  his  decree  for  the  consultation  of  omens,  and  in 
the  fact  that  he  retained  the  title  of  “Supreme  Pontiff.” 
With  regard  to  the  temple  of  Concord,  we  answer  that  the 
inscription  proves  that  the  Senate  and  Roman  people  (S.  P. 
Q.  R.)  restored  it,  but  not  that  Constantine  did  so  (1).  The 
decree  as  to  the  consultation  of  omens  proves  simply  that 
he  could  not  all  at  once  do  away  with  Pagan  superstition. 
He  tolerated  the  augurs  by  a law  of  the  year  320,  which  is 
found  in  the  code  of  Theodosius,  b.  16,  tit.  10,  No.  1,  and  its 
words  show  that  he  looked  upon  their  system  as  a super- 
stition. If  Constantine  was  at  heart  a Pagan  because  he 
bore  the  title  of  “ Supreme  Pontiff,”  then  so  were  many  of 
his  successors,  for  not  until  the  year  375  was  the  appella- 
tion dropped  by  Gratian.  From  the  time  of  his  vision, 
however,  he  never  officiated  as  Pontiff,  nor  did  he  ever  sac- 
rifice to  the  gods.  He  kept  the  title,  lest  it  should  be 
' taken  up  by  some  one  else  in  the  interests  of  the  dying  sys- 
tem, and  not  from  any  affection  to  the  office. 

And  now  for  the  time  and  place  of  Constantine’s  baptism. 
Eusebius,  in  his  Life  of  Constantine , b.  4,  c.  61  and  62,  gives 
the  circumstances  as  follows:  “ In  the  beginning  he  was 

attacked  by  an  uneven  temperature  of  the  body,  and  then 
by  illness.  Therefore  he  went  to  the  warm  waters  of  his 
city,  and  then  he  was  taken  to  Helenopolis,  where,  pausing 
for  a long  time  in  the  church  of  the  Martyrs,  he  offered 
supplications  and  prayers  to  God.  When  he  felt  that  the 
end  of  life  was  imminent,  he  thought  that  at  length  the 
time  had  come  for  him  to  expiate  the  faults  of  his  whole 

(1)  Palma  speaks  of  two  Inscriptions,  one  of  which  is  addressed  to  Constantine  by  the  8.  P. 
Q.  R.,  but  contains  nothing  attributing  the  restoration  to  him  ; the  other  treats  of  the  res- 
toration by  the  8.  P.  Q.  R.,  but  says  nothing  at  all  of  the  emperor.  “ There  are  some,"  be 
says,  “ who  think  that,  through  the  fault  of  some  Ignorant  man,  these  two  inscriptions  hare- 
been  made  into  one." 


Digitized  by 


Google 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


154 

life  ; most  firmly  believing  that  whatever  sin  he  had  com- 
mitted, through  human  frailty,  would  be  wiped  out  by  the 
efficacy  of  the  secret  words,  and  the  salutary  immersion. 
Having  thought  these  things,  kneeling  on  the  ground,  he 
humbly  begged  pardon  of  God,  confessing  his  sius  in  the 
same  church  of  the  Martyrs,  and  iu  that  place  he  first 
merited  to  receive  the  imposition  of  hands  with  solemn 
prayer.  Thence  having  gone  as  far  as  the  suburbs  of 
Nicomedia,  calling  the  bishops,  he  addressed  to  them  these 
wfords  : ‘This  is  the  time  for  which  I have  long  hoped,  for 

which  I have  longed  with  incredible  desire,  which  1 have 
asked  for  writh  my  every  prayer,  that  I might  attaiu  salva- 
tion in  God.  Now  is  the  time  when  w'e  also  should  receive 
the  sign  confers  immortality ; now  is  the  time  for  us  to 

be  made  participants  of  the  salutary  seal.  Truly.  I had 
once  decided  to  do  this  in  the  river  Jordan,  in  which,  for 
our  example,  our  Saviour  Himself  received  the  immersion. 
But  God,  who  best  knows  what  is  useful  for  us,  deigns 
that  it  should  be  done  in  this  place.  Therefore,  let 
all  doubt  be  removed.  For  if  God,  the  arbiter  of  life 
and  death,  wishes  me  to  live  longer  here,  and  it  is  decreed 
that  I am  hereafter  to  mingle  writh  the  people  of  God,  and 
that,  aggregated  to  the  Church,  I am  to  partake  of  her 
prayers  with  the  rest,  I promise  to  prescribe  for  myself 
«uch  lawrs  of  living  as  are  due  to  God.*  When  he  had  said 
this,  they  performed  the  divine  ceremonies  with  solemn  rite, 
and  enjoining  upon  him  what  was  necessary,  they  made  him 
a participant  in  the  Sacred  Mysteries.  Of  all  the  emperors 
who  have  ever  been,  Constantine  alone,  (fee.”  There  is  only 
one  way  of  escaping  from  this  testimony  of  Eusebius,  and 
that  is  at  once  adopted  by  Baronio,  firmest  of  all  those  who 
believe  in  the  emperor’s  baptism  at  Rome.  No  confidence 
is  to  be  placed  in  Eusebius,  in  this  matter  at  least,  says  the 
father  of  Ecclesiastical  Annals,  since  he  was  tinged  with 
Arianism,  and  naturally  drew  a curtain  over  the  baptism 
by  Pope  Sylvester,  that  he  might  consult  the  feelings  of 
Constantius,  the  Arian  son  of  Constantine.  But  Eusebius  is 
not  merely  silent  as  to  the  baptism  at  Rome ; if  he  were, 
the  conjecture  of  Baronio  might  demand  attention.  He 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE. 


155 


positively  asserts  the  Nicoinedian  baptism,  knowing,  that 
if  he  lies,  there  are  hundreds  living  who  can  brand  him  as  he 
deserves.  Again,  how  could  such  a lie  be  a salve  to  the  feel- 
ings of  Cons  tan  tius  ? Was  this  prince  so  much  more 
ignorant  of  affairs  than  the  rest  of  the  world,  as  to  be  un- 
aware of  his  father  s intense  aversion  for  Arianism  ? He 
well  knew  that  he  was  not  following  in  the  footsteps  of 
Constantine ; hence,  there  was  no  solid  reason  why  Euse- 
bius should,  for  the  sake  of  his  tender  feelings,  frame  so 
tremendous  a lie.  We  will  merely  allude  to  Socrates, 
Sozomenus,  Theodoret,  Sts.  Jerome,  and  Ambrose,  as  agree- 
ing with  Eusebius  in  this  matter,  and  pass  to  the  arguments 
generally  adduced  by  those  who  contend  that  Constantine 
was  baptized  at  Rome. 

Their  principal  argument  is  derived  from  the  Acts  of  St. 
Sylvester,  and  the  records  of  a Roman  synod  held  in  the 
year  324,  which  assert  that  the  emperor  was  baptized  and 
cured  of  a leprosy  by  that  Pontiff.  But  neither  these  Ads 
nor  the  records  of  the  synod  are  genuine.  Alexandre  (1) 
details  many  reasons  why  the  Acts  should  be  rejected,  of 
which  we  will  give  one  as  a specimen  of  all.  They  narrate 
that  in  the  year  315  a synod  was  held  at  Rome,  at  which 
attended  75  bishops,  and  109  Jewish  priests ; 12  of  the  lat- 
ter having  been  sent  by  the  high-priest,  Isachar,  to  dispute 
on  religion  with  their  patroness,  the  empress  Helena,  and 
with  Constantine.  For,  they  say,  Helena  was  yet  a Pagan, 
but  almost  converted  to  Judaism,  and  was  violently  angry 
with  her  son  because  of  his  Christian  proclivities,  and  had 
begged  him  to  become  a Jew.  Is  not  all  this  trash  ? Pass- 
ing by  the  absurdities,  do  we  not  know  that,  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  the  Jews  ceased  to  create  high-priests, 
and  that  the  very  name  of  Pontiff  had  grown  obsolete  among 
them  ? We  cannot,  therefore,  yield  homage  to  the  Ads  of 
Sylvester.  As  for  the  cited  records,  they  represent  a synod 
which  was  never  held.  In  the  first  place,  they  speak  of  the 
heresy  of  Photinus,  which  did  not  arise  before  the  year 
343,  and  treat  of  it  as  condemned,  while  it  was  not  con- 
demned before  the  Sirmian  council  of  351.  We  pass  several 

(1)  Fourth  cent.,  dis.  23. 


• Digitized  by  OjOOQle 


156 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


other  intrinsic  proofs  of  falsity,  and  ask  if  women,  even 
though  they  were  empresses,  were  ever  admitted  into  the 
synods  of  the  Church  ? Yet  these  records  present  Helena 
as  even  subscribing  to  the  decrees.  Again,  this  synod  ap- 
pears to  have  been  so  lacking  in  the  roughest  kind  of  com- 
mon sense,  that  no  one  can  believe  it  other  than  fictitious. 
Among  its  canons  is  this  one  : “ No  bishop  shall  bless  the 
marriage  of  a sacred  virgin  unless  he  knows  her  to  be  seventy- 
two  years  of  age.”  Another  canon  says  that  “no  bishop 
shall  be  condemned  unless  by  seventy-two  witnesses  ; no 
priest,  without  forty-four,  &c.”  In  the  13th  canon,  it  is  es- 
tablished that  “ no  one  shall  attain  clerical  honors  unless 
he  has  first  received  the  sacred  veil  of  marriage  at  the  hands 
of  a priest.”  It  is  evident  then  that  no  value  can  be  at- 
tached to  the  testimony  of  such  records.  The  Ads  of 
Liber im  are  also  produced  in  favor  of  the  Roman  baptism. 
According  to  them,  Constantius  was  highly  indignant  be- 
cause Liberius  said  that  .Constantine  had  been  cured  of 
leprosy  when  he  was  baptized  by  St.  Sylvester.  Baronio 
himself  admits  that  these  Ads  are  full  of  errors,  and  the 
ancient  writers  are  silent  in  their  regard,  although  they  are 
most  diligent  in  collecting  all  possible  evidence  bearing  up- 
on the  contest  of  Liberius  with  Constantius.  And  why 
should  Constantius  be  specially  angry  with  Liberius  for 
asserting  that  which,  if  true,  must  have  been  as  yet  fresh 
in  the  minds  of  many  ? 

It  is  incredible,  say  the  defenders  of  the  Sylvestrian 
baptism,  that  Constantine  should  have  been  so  supersti- 
tious as  to  put  off  his  baptism,  merely  that  he  might  receive 
it  in  the  Jordan.  And  whose  example  encouraged  him  to 
defer  so  important  an  act  to  the  end  of  his  life  ? Besides, 
if  he  really  wished  to  be  baptized  in  the  holy  river,  why 
did  he  not  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity,  when  he  was  at 
Jerusalem  for  the  dedication  of  the  new  temple  ? To  this 
we  may  answer  that  there  was  no  superstition  in  desiring 
to  be  baptized  in  the  waters  sanctified  by  contact  with  the 
body  of  Christ.  That  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  were  often 
bathed  in  with  a religious  devotion,  we  know  from  Eusebius 
and  St.  Jerome ; especially  on  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION’  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE. 


157 


the  faithful  were  wont  to  don  the  shroud  they  were  to  wear 
in  the  grave,  and  descend  into  the  river  to  be  blessed  by 
the  priest.  A spirit  of  piety,  therefore,  and  not  of  super- 
stition, animated  Constantine  when  he  wished  to  be  bap- 
tized in  those  waters  (1).  As  for  the  examples  by  which 
the  emperor  was  influenced,  they  matter  little,  but  we  know 
tnat  he  was  not  alone  in  deferring  his  baptism,  however 
we  may  condemn  the  delay.  Yalentinian  died  a catechumen  ; * 
Constantius  remained  one  for  many  years.  Nectarius,  and 
Sts.  Ambrose  and  Augustine  were  baptized  in  mature  age  ; 
the  last  tells  us  it  was  common  in  his  time  (2).  The  obser- 
vation upon  the  opportunity  furnished  by  the  dedication  at 
Jerusalem  is  of  no  importance ; we  wish  not  to  know  what 
the  emperor  might  have  done,  but  what  he  did. 

But,  it  is  urged,  if  Constantine  was  baptized  in  the  year 
387  at  Nicomedia,  he  must  have  been  baptized  by  Euse- 
bius of  Nicomedia,  who  was  an  Arian  ; hence,  he  became  an 
Arian,  which  is  absurd.  It  does  not  follow  from  the  fact 
of  his  having  been  baptized  at  Nicomedia,  that  Constantine 
was  baptized  by  Eusebius,  bishop  of  that  city.  Had  he  so 
been,  the  equally  Arian  Eusebius  of  CaBsarea  would  gladly 
have  mentioned  the  fact.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  (3)  tells  us 
“ he  was  baptized  by  an  orthodox  priest,  and  not.  as  some 
have  said,  by  some  one  of  the  heretics.”  And  the  Pagan 
historian  Zosimus,  in  the  peculiarly  Pagan  way  of  treating 
Christian  matters,  says  that  the  emperor  was  purified  by 
a Spanish  magician;  might  it  not  then,  asks  Alexandre, 
have  been  Hosius  of  Cordova,  who  was  so  often  in  his 
suite,  and  was  very  dear  to  him,  who  performed  the  cere- 
mony? Finally,  even  though  we  grant  that  Constantine 
was  baptized  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  became  an  Arian,  for  that  bishop  had  subscribed 
to  the  Nicene  faith,  and  professed  himself  a Catholic. 

A reconciliation  between  the  description  of  Eusebius  and  | 
the  theory  of  the  Sylvestrian  baptism  was  attempted  by 

(l)  St.  Jerome,  translating  Eusebius  (Loc.  Heb.)%  writes;  “ Bethabara,  across  the  Jor- 
dan. where  John  was  accustomed  to  baptize  unto  penance.  Hence,  even  to-day,  many  of 
the  faithful  desire  to  be  there  reborn,  and  are  there  baptized  In  the  life-giving  waters.” 

(2)  Confcs&iom , b.  1,  c.  10.  (3)  See  Photius,  Bibliotheca , Cod.  88. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


158 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Bianchini  (1),  who  applied  the  words  of  the  historian  to 
Constantine's  reception  of  the  sacraments  of  Penance  and 
Confirmation.  The  phrase/*  kneeling  on  the  ground,  he 
humbly  asked  pardon  of  God,  confessing  his  sins,”  natur- 
ally refers,  he  says,  to  confession ; while,  among  the  Greeks, 
it  was  common  to  speak  of  Confirmation  as  “ the  divine 
seal.”  But  this  theory,  while  ingenious,  is  not  solid. 
Eusebius  expressly  states  that  Constantine  received  the 
sign  **  which  confers  immortality,”  and  that  phrase  applies 
only  to  Baptism.  Again,  of  Baptism  it  is  properly  said,  of 
Confirmation  it  cannot  be  predicated,  that  it  makes  one  a 
participant  in  the  sacred  mysteries ; that  by  it  one  is  re- 
born, renovated,  &c. ; that  through  it  one  is  allowed  to  mix 
with  the  people  of  God.  Finally,  how  could  Constantine 
have  wished  to  receive  Confirmation  by  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan  ? Chrism,  not  water,  is  the  matter  of  the  sacrament 
of  Confirmation. 

So  grievous  were  the  suspicions  excited  in  some  minds 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  baptism  of  Constantine,  that, 
when  compared  with  certain  events  of  his  life,  they  led  to  a 
belief  that  this  first  Christian  emperor  had  become  an  Ari- 
an.  A few  remarks,  therefore,  upon  the  faith  of  Constantine 
will  not  be  amiss  at  the  close  of  this  dissertation.  He  cer- 
tainly was  cruel  to  Athanasius  and  other  defenders  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  ; he  wa  undeniably  very  familiar  with  the  Ari- 
ans,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  with  the  Semiarians  ; and  he 
may  have,  as  Rufinus  says,  consigned  his  last  will  and  testa- 
ment to  an  Ariau  priest.  St.  Jerome,  in  his  Chronicle  ; Luci- 
fer of  Cagliari,  in  his  book  addressed  to  the  emperor ; Sulpi- 
tius  Severus,  in  his  History  ; llufinus,  also  in  his  History , all 
speak  of  him  as  an  Arian.  And  nevertheless,  it  is  easy  to 
show  that,  in  his  life,  and  at  his  death,  the  faith  of  Con- 
stantine was  orthodox.  During  his  life,  the  Arians  did  not 
dare  to  attack  the  faith  of  Nice;  even,  in  the  time  of  Con- 
stantius,  when  they  tried  to  do  so  at  Antioch,  they  declared, 

“ We  certainly  are  not  acolytes  of  Arius nor  do 

we  receive  any  faith  but  that  delivered  in  the  beginning.” 
If,  therefore,  Constantine  was  familiar  with  the  Eusebians, 

(1)  Historical  Notes  to  Anastasias  the  Librarian . 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  AND  BAPTISM  OF  CONSTANTINE. 


159 


he  ought  not  be  supposed  to  have  been  drawn  by  them  into 
Arianism.  Again,  Athanasius,  whom  Constantine  had  ex- 
iled, upbraids  Constantius  because  he  does  not  imitate  the 
faith  and  piety  of  his  father  (1).  After  the  death  of  Con- 
stantine, Athanasius,  in  an  interview  with  the  youngest  son, 
Constans,  pays  the  same  tribute  to  the  faith  of  tne  parent 
(2).  St.  Hilary  styles  Constantius  “ a rebel  heir  of  the 
paternal  piety”  (3).  St.  Epiphanius  says  that  Constantius, 

“ while  otherwise  pious,  and  endowed  with  many  orna- 
ments of  virtue,  wandered  in  this  one  thing,  that  he  did 
not  follow  the  parental  footsteps  in  the  faith”  (4).  Finally, 
the  ancient  Menologies  of  the  Greek  Church  number  Con- 
stantine among  the  saints,  and  although  Borne  has  never 
approved  that  canonization,  any  more  than  she  has  the 
popular  canonization  of  Charlemagne  by  some  of  the 
peoples  of  Europe,  yet  the  insertion  of  his  name  in  the 
sacred  dyptichs  is  a strong  argument  for  the  orthodoxy  of 
Constantine.  The  combined  authority  of  St.  Jerome,  Luci- 
fer of  Cagliari,  Sulpitius  Severus,  and  Bufinus,  proving,  as 
they  all  do,  at  the  most,  that  Constantine  was  deceived  by 
the  enemies  of  Athanasius,  is  of  far  less  weight  in  determin- 
ing the  faith  of  that  sovereign,  than  the  favorable  testimony  , 
of  the  saintly  hero  of  Alexandria,  who  was  for  so  many 
years  in  the  thick  of  the  fight,  and  had  far  better  opportu- 
nities of  forming  a correct  opinion  upon  Arian  matters  than 
they  could  have  possessed.  The  opinion  of  Athanasius  as 
to  the  faith  of  Constantine  may  be  gathered  from  the  pass- 
ages already  quoted,  and  from  the  following,  taken  from  the 
Epistle  to  Solitaries  : 4<  The  father  (Constantine),  on  account 
of  the  calumnies  of  the  Eusebians,  sent  Athanasius  into 
Gaul  for  a time,  where  he  would  be  free  from  the  cruelty  of 
those  who  tried  to  ensnare  him And  if  he  did  ad- 

mit Arius  into  his  presence,  when  he  knew  him  for  a per- 
jurer,   he  showed  no  good  will  to  him,  but,  the  af- 

fair being  known,  he  regarded  him  as  condemned,  and  as  a 
heretic.” 


(1)  Epistle  to  Solitaries. 
(8  B.  I.,  to  Constantius. 


(2)  Theodore U b.  2,  c.  4. 
(4)  On  Heresies  No . 68. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


160 


STUDIES  IN*<?flURCH  HISTORY. 


I 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PUBLIC  PENANCE  AND  AURICULAR  CONFESSION.. 

We  have  already  seen  that,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christian- 
ity, such  persons  as  were  guilty  of  idolatry  and  certain 
other  grave  sins,  were  obliged  to  perform  public  penance 
before  they  could  be  restored  to  the  communion  of  the 
faithful.  That  this  custom  was  in  full  vigor  in  the  days 
of  Tertullian  (born  A.  D.  150)  appears  from  his  book  on 
Penance. , c.  9.,  where  he  says  that  penance  is  a discipline 
for  the  humiliation  of  man ; that  in  its  course  he  should 
be  clothed  in  sackcloth,  and  sprinkled  with  ashes ; that 
his  soul  should  be  cast  down  in  grief,  and  his  body  treated 
with  contempt ; that  he  should  nourish  his  prayers  with 
fasting  and  w’eep  by  day  and  by  night ; that  he  should 
have  recourse  to  the  priests,  and  ask  the  prayers  of  the 
dear  ones  of  God.  And  St.  Cyprian  (died,  258)  tells  us, 
speaking  of  those  who  7 had  fallen  into  idolatry,  “They 
should  pray  more  earnestly,  pass  the  day  in  grief,  and  the 
night  in  watches  and  in  weeping,  spend  the  whole  time 
in  tearful  lamentations  ; they  should  lie  prostrate  on  the 
ground  in  ashes,  be  covered  with  sackcloth  and  dirt ; 
having  lost  Christ  for  a vestment,  they  should  wish  no  other 
clothing  ; having  eaten  the  food  of  the  devil,  they  should 
prefer  to  fast ; they  should  attend  to  good  works,  through 
which  sins  are  washed  out,  and  often  give  alms,  through 
which  their  souls  may  be  freed  from  death.”  But  St. 
Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea  (210-270)  called  the  “ Worker  of 
Miracles,”  is  the  first  author  who  expressly  mentions  the 
four  classes  into  which  the  public  penitents  were  divided. 
They  were  the  weepers,  the  hearers,  the  prostrate,  and 
those  who  remained  (< comistentes ).  In  his  canonical  epistle, 
written  about  the  year  263,  in  reference  to  those  who  had 
aaten  food  offered  to  the  idols  during  the  barbarian  inroad 
into  Pontus,  and  about  whose  treatment  he  was  consulted, 
the  saint  describes,  in  the  eleventh  canon  (1),  the  state 

U)  The  authenticity  of  this  canon  is  proved  by  Nat.  Alexander,  in  tffcw.  18,  4th  cent. 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


PUBLIC  TENANCE  AND  AURICULAR  CONFESSION.  161 


of  each  of  these  classes.  The  weepers  were  kept  entirely 
outside  the  church,  and  they  there  besought  the  faithful 
who  were  entering,  to  pray  for  them.  The  hearers  were 
admitted  within  the  doors,  but  restricted  to  a part  of  ther 
nave  called  narthex,  where  they  could  hear  the  sermon. 
The  prostrate,  though  mentioned  as  a separate  class,  are 
comprehended  by  St.  Gregory  under  the  same  rules  as  the 
hearers,  both  being  sent  out  of  the  church  with  the  cat- 
echumens before  the  Offertory.  The  remaining  penitents 
were  allowed  to  hear  the  whole  mass,  but  could  not  receive 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  Thus  we  see  that  the  weepers  alone 
were,  of  all  classes  of  humanity,  entirely  excluded  from  the 
services  of  the  Church.  We  learn  from  the  4th  Council  of 
Carthage,  can.  84,  that  Pagans,  Jews,  and  heretics,  were 
permitted  to  be  present  up  to  the  Offertory,  in  order  to 
receive  some  amount  of  instruction.  This,  however,  must 
be  understood  of  the  time  when  the  Discipline  of  the 
Secret  had  been  relaxed,  for  while  that  system  was  in  force, 
outsiders  were  rigidly  excluded.  All  penitents  wore  a 
peculiar  dress.  The  stuff  was  clean,  but  sprinkled  with 
ashes  ; it  was  of  sackcloth  or  even  of  haircloth.  The  hair 
was  dishevelled,  and  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  modesty, 
the  appearance  of  the  body  betokened  contempt  of  conven- 
tionality. During  the  penitential  course,  arms  could  not 
be  borne,  nor  could  its  subjects  assist  at  weddings  and 
other  reunions  of  society.  The  time  was  passed  in  rigid 
tasting,  in  prayer,  in  vigils,  and  every  kind  of  bodily  morti- 
fication. These  particulars  we  learn  from  the  2nd  Council 
of  Arles,  can.  21 ; St  Leo  the  Great,  epist.  92 ; Tertullian, 
book  on  Penance ; St.  Jerome,  epist.  to  Oceamis  on  the  death 
of  Fabiola;  3rd  Council  of  Toledo,  can.  12. 

It  may  be  asked  whether  this  public  penance  was  ren- 
dered more  painful  by  a public  confession  of  the  sin  com- 
mitted. Certainly,  the  spectators  might  easily  conjecture 
the  nature  of  the  sin  by  noting  the  time  spent  in  penance, 
which  would  amount  to  a confession  on  the  part  of  the 
penitent.  Thus,  we  know  from  St.  Basil,  in  his  canons  to 
Amphilochius,  that  adulterers  passed  fifteen  years  in  pen- 
ance, four  among  the  weepers,  five  with  the  hearers,  four 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


1G2 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


with  the  prostrate,  and  two  with  those  remaining  to  the 
end  of  mass.  However,  such  conjecture  would  not  be  very 
conclusive,  for  it  often  happened  that  humility  and  fervor 
i prompted  a penitent  to  remain  in  discipline  long  beyond 
the  prescribed  time.  But  sometimes  there  was  a public 
and  explicit  confession,  especially  when  the  crime  was  noto- 
rious. This  we  learn  from  St.  Jerome,  who  describes  the 
avowal  and  penance  of  Fabiola,  a noble  lady,  who  under  the 
impression  that  the  adultery  of  her  husband  had  dissolved 
her  marriage,  publicly  espoused  another.  When,  however, 
the  sin  was  secret,  it  depended  upon  the  will  of  the  peni- 
tent whether  a public  confession  should  be  made.  St  Am- 
brose, in  his  work  on  Penance , book  2.  c.  10,  exhorts  ta 
public  penance  those  whom  shame  is  keeping  therefrom, 
and  he  founds  his  argument  upon  the  idea  that  shame 
should  not  deter  from  public  humiliation  before  God,  him 
whom  shame  has  not  withheld  from  the  private  confession 
to  a priest.  “Should  it  shame  you  to  supplicate  God  from 
whom  you  are  not  hidden,  when  it  does  not  shame  you  ta 
confess  your  sins  to  a man  to  whom  you  are  hidden  ? 
This  method  .of  reasoning  could  not  have  been  adopted* 
had  public  confession  been  inseparable  from  public  pen- 
ance. Again,  the  fourth  and  tenth  Councils  of  Toledo,  in 
canons  12  and  10  respectively,  decide  that  no  one  shall  be 
debarred  from  Holy  Orders  on  account  of  a public  penance 
which  was  unaccompanied  by  public  confession.  Now  we 
know  that  the  public  knowledge  of  his  crimes  would  render 
1 a candidate  irregular  for  Orders.  Therefore,  since  men 
who  had  undergone  public  penance  were  sometimes  admit- 
ted to  Orders,  it  follows  that  said  penance  was  not  always- 
accompanied  by,  or  even  necessarily  equivalent  to,  a pub- 
lic confession.  Finally,  St.  Leo  the  Great,  epist.  238  ( alias 
80),  speaking  of  public  penance,  expressly  teaches  that  a 
private  confession  to  a priest  is  sufficient,  without  any  pub- 
lic manifestation  of  the  particular  crime.  Here  we  take 
occasion  to  note  that  in  the  African  Church,  at  least  at  one 
period,  a public  confession  of  a hitherto  unknown  crime 
could  not  take  place.  For  in  the  third  Council  of  Carth- 
age, can.  32,  public  penance  is  absolutely  forbidden  “ unless. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PUBLIC  PENANCE  AND  AURICULAR  CONCESSION. 


m 


on  account  of  a public  and  most  notorious  crime,  known 
to  the  whole  Church.  With  regard  to  this  matter  of  pub- 
lic confession,  we  may  safely  say  with  Petau,  that  it  was 
never  prescribed  by  the  Church,  but  sometimes  allowed,  for 
the  sake  of  edification. 

The  public  penitents  received  from  the  priest  two  kinds 
of  “ imposition  of  hands.’'  One  was  “deprecatory,”  and 
was  given  each  time  they  were  dismissed,  before  the  Offer- 
tory ; the  other  was  sacramental  and  “ absolutory,”  and 
was  only  given  when  the  penance  was  completed.  When  it 
happened  that  danger  of  death  came  upon  one  as  yet  in 
the  course  of  penance,  absolution  was  of  course  conceded, 
but  with  the  obligation,  in  case  of  recovery,  of  completing 
the  interrupted  discipline.  At  the  time  of  their  “ reconcilia- 
tion,” the  ex-penitents  always  received  Holy  Communion. 
See  St.  Ambrose,  book  2,  on  Penance . 

From  the  nature  of  the  system  of  Canonical  Penance,  we 
are  prepared  to  hear  that  few  crimes  were  subject  to  its 
discipline.  We  learn  from  Tertullian,  on  Purity , c.  14  and 
12,  and  from  Pacianus,  that  they  can  be  reduced  to  the 
heads  of  infidelity,  luxury,  and  homicide.  “ These  three 
crimes  are  to  be  feared  as  the  breath  of  the  basilisk,  as  a. 
cup  of  poison,  as  a deadly  arrow.  What  shall  the  contemn- 
er of  God  do,  what  the  bloody  man  ? What  remedy  shall 
the  fornicator  take  ? Can  he  who  deserts  Him,  pacify  the 
Lord  ? Can  he  consecrate  His  blood  who  has  spilled  an- 
other’s ? Can  he  reconstruct  the  temple  of  God,  who  by 
fornication  has  violated  it  in  himself?  These  things  are 
capital,  brethren,  these  are  mortal.”  St.  Gregory  of  Na- 
zienzen  (328-389)  in  his  epistle  to  Laetoius , seeks  a reason 
for  the  Church’s  severity  against  these  crimes,  in  their  con- 
nection with  the  prominent  activities  of  the  soul : reason, 
concupiscence,  and  anger.  Impiety  towards  God  perverts 
the  whole  reasoning  faculty;  anger  causes  homicide,  concu- 
piscence brings  forth  every  species  of  impurity.  Under  the 
heading  of  infidelity,  he  classes  all  recourse  to  magicians,  all 
incantations,  all  invocations  to  the  demon.  The  first  Council 
of  Arles,  can.  14,  subjects  to  public  penance  the  perpetrators 
of  forgery,  false  witnesses,  and  calumniators  of  character. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


164 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Tlie  system  of  public  penance  flourished  in  the  Church 
for  twelve  centuries,  and  in  the  last  two  of  its  existence, 
although  formerly  penitents  could  not  bear  arms,  it  was 
commuted  for  participation  in  the  crusades.  (1)  Some 
Protestant  authors  have  contended  that  it  was  from  this 
discipline  that  arose  the  Catholic  practice  of  auricular  con- 
fession ; that,  in  fact,  the  custom  of  private  and  secret  con- 
fession only  came  into  use  when  the  ancient  system  of  pub- 
lic and  general  confession  was  abolished.  It  is  outside  of 
our  historical  province  to  defend  the  Catholic  doctrine  on 
this  subject,  but  we  will  not  enter  the  special  domain  of 
dogmatic  theology,  if  we  show,  by  the  light  of  history,  that 
ancient  writers  recognized  both  private  and  public  confes- 
sion. Origen  (185-254),  in  his  2 ml  Homily  on  the  37 th  Psalm , 
tells  all  sinners  who  may  think  of  doing  public  penance,  to 
first  confess  their  sins  to  a priest,  and  then  act  according  to 
his  judgment.  “ Seek  diligently,”  he  says,  ‘‘  for  one  to  whom 
you  may  confess  your  sins.  Try  the  physician,  to  whom 

you  will  expose  the  cause  of  your  malady that  so, 

at  length,  if  he  says  anything,  who  first  shows  himself  to  be 
a merciful  and  learned  physician,  if  he  gives  any  counsel, 
you  may  follow  it.  If  he  understands,  and  foresees,  that 
your  trouble  should  be  exposed  and  cured  in  an  assembly 
of  the  whole  church,  so  that  perhaps  others  may  be  edified, 
and  you  yourself  easily  healed,  this  should  be  arrived  at 
with  much  deliberation.”  Here  certainly  we  find  that  upon 
the  private  confession  was  to  depend  the  feasibility  of  the 
public  penance  in  a particular  case.  We  may  adduce  the 
testimony  of  St.  Cyprian  (died  258)  who  in  his  book  on  The 
Fallen , speaking  of  those  who  had  bought  certificates  of 
compliance,  though  they  had  not  really  been  guilty  of  idol- 
atry, says,  “ Of  how  much  greater  faith  and  fear  are  those 
who,  although  stained  by  no  crime  either  of  sacrifice  or  of 
certificate,  yet,  having  thought  to  commit  the  act,  do  now  in 
simplicity  and  grief  confess  this  to  the  priests  of  God,  and 
make  a confession  of  conscience,  {sic)  lay  open  the  burden 

(1)  As  to  the  treatment  of  the  clergy,  under  the  system  of  public  penance,  there  la  a 
variety  of  opinion,  some  authors  contending  that  not  even  the  higher  clergy  were  exempt 
from  Its  application.  See  the  dissertations  of  Cabassut  and  Coustant,  inserted  by  Z&cearia 
In  bis  Latin  edition  of  Fleury’s  Discipline  of  the  People  of  God. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PUBLIC  PENANCE  AND  AURICULAR  CONFESSION.  166 


•of  their  souls,  and  receive  the  healing  cure  for  even  their 
little  wounds/’  Surely  by  the  term  “ confession  of  conscience* 
the  saint  cannot  mean  a public  avowal ; the  very  word  im- 
plies secrecy.  We  learn  from  Anastasius  the  Librarian  that 
Pope  Simplicius  (467)  ordered  that  on  certain  days  priests 
-should  be  in  attendance  at  the  basilicas  of  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul, 
and  St.  Laurence,  on  account  of  penitents  and  baptisms.  In 
the  Roman  Penitentiale , tit.  8,  Pope  Symmachus  (498)  says : 
“ All  whom  we  receive  in  penance,  are  thereby  our  spiritual 
children,  just  as  are  those  whom  we  have  taken  from  the 
font,  or  whom  we  have  immersed  therein,  and  whom  the 
baptismal  water  has  regenerated.’’  This  spiritual  affinity 
could  not  be  contracted  with  public  penitents  merely  because 
of  their  being  such  ; again,  the  comparison  with  baptism 
shows  that  Symmachus  supposes  his  penance  to  be  the  ad- 
ministration of  a sacrament.  In  the  Council  of  Elvira, 
which  was  held  before  that  of  Nice,  the  32nd  canon 
reads  thus  : “ It  pleased  the  fathers  that  if  any  one  should 
fall  into  a deadly  sin,  he  should  do  penance  rather  before  the 
bishop  than  before  a pries V'  which  can  only  mean  that  the 
Spanish  prelates  wished  public  and  very  grave  crimes  to  be 
referred  to  the  bishop,  while  hidden  ones,  which  did  not 
call  for  public  penance,  should  be  confessed  to,  and  absolv- 
ed by,  the  priest.  The  history  of  the  Novatian  schism  in 
the  3d  century  also  shows  that  private  confession  was  in  use 
at  that  time.  The  doctrine  of  the  Novatians  is  well  ex- 
pressed by  Chrysostom  (1)  in  the  words  he  puts  into  their 
mouths  : “ It  is  not  for  thee  to  give  the  Eucharist  to  those 
who  have  sinned,  for  there  is  no  other  remission”  (than  by 
baptism).  That  is,  the  Novatians  held  that  since  the  Eu- 
charist could  only  be  received  by  the  innocent  of  sin, 
the  fallen  (into  idolatry,  under  Decius)  could  not  receive  it, 
for  there  was  no  way  of  recovering  their  baptismal  inno- 
cence. The  whole  controversy,  therefore,  was  as  to  whether 
Christ  had  left  to  His  Church  any  sacrament,  other  than 
baptism,  for  the  remission  of  sin.  The  fathers  of  the 
council  held  at  Rome  in  the  year  254  declared  that  the 
f<  fallen,”  when  penitent,  were  to  be  forgiven.  The  mere 

(1)  Comment  on  Epist.  Heb.}  c.  10. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


166 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


standing  in  penance  for  a time  could  not  bring  about  their 
reconciliation,  except  as  a preparation  for  the  sacrament,  to 
be  received  at  the  end  of  the  probation.  Again,  it  is  certain 
that  the  quality  and  length  of  the  public  penance  depend- 
ed entirely  upon  the  judgment  given  by  the  confessor  ; nay, 
it  depended  upon  him  as  to  whether  or  not  there  should 
bo  any  public  penance.  As  Origen  said,  in  the  passage  just 
quoted,  the  confessor  had  to  judge  whether  “ the  trouble 
should  be  exposed  and  cured  in  an  assembly  of  the  whole 
church,”  and  that  judgment  could  be  delivered  only  after 
private  confession. 

The  opponents  of  auricular  confession  contrive  to  draw 
considerable  comfort  from  a famous  fact  in  the  life  of  Nec- 
tarius  of  Constantinople,  who  succeeded  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen  in  that  see,  in  the  year  389.  This  bishop,  they  say, 
abolished  in  his  diocese  the  practice  of  private  confession, 
and  was  not  therefore  condemned ; this  shows  that  the  cus- 
tom was  derived  from  human,  not  divine  institution.  Pre- 
mising that  a note  should  be  taken  of  this  objection  as  an 
admission  that  the  practice  was  in  vogue  in  the  4th  century, 
we  narrate  the  fact  in  the  words  of  Socrates,  book  5,  c.  19, 
“About  this  time,  it  pleased  (the  authorities)  to  abolish  the 
priests  of  the  churches  who  managed  penance,  and  for  this 
cause.  After  the  Novatians  had  separated  from  the  Church, 
because  they  would  not  communicate  with  those  who  had 
fallen  in  the  Decian  persecution,  from  that  time  the  bishopa 
added  to  the  church  rolls  a penitentiary  priest,  in  order  that 
those  who,  after  baptism,  had  fallen,  might  confess  their 
sins  to  a priest  appointed  for  that  purpose.  . . . When  this 
institution  had  been  in  vogue  a long  time,  it  was  at  length 
abolished,  in  the  time  of  bishop  Nectarius,  on  account  of  a 
certain  crime  committed  in  the  church.  A certain  noble 
woman  had  approached  the  penitentiary  priest,  and  confess- 
ed the  sins  committed  by  her  since  her  baptism.  The  priest 
ordered  the  woman  to  fast  and  pray  frequently,  which 
actions,  taken  together  with  her  confession  of  her  sins, 
would  constitute  a work  befitting  penitence.  In  the  course 
of  time,  the  woman  confessed  another  ciime,  that  a dea- 
con of  the  church  had  committed  fornication . with  her. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


PUBLIC  PENANCE  AND  AURICULAR  CONFESSION. 


167 


When  she  had  said  this,  the  deacon  was  ejected  from  the 
church,  and  the  people  were  greatly  moved;  not  only 
on  account  of  the  crime  committed  were  they  indignant,  but 
because  of  the  infamy  and  heavy  stain  put  by  this  fact  up- 
on the  Church.  When,  therefore,  on  account  of  this  thing, 
reproaches  were  heaped  upon  churchmen,  Eudaemon,  a 
priest,  and  Alexandrian  by  birth,  persuaded  bishop  Nectar- 
ius  to  do  away  with  the  penitentiary  priest,  and  to  allow 
every  one,  as  he  might  wish,  and  for  his  own  conscience,  to 
approach  the  communion  of  the  sacraments.’’  Besides  con- 
firming  the  above  narration,  Sozomenus,  book  7,  c.  16,  says : 
“ Since,  in  seeking  pardon  of  sin,  one  must  necessarily  con- 
fess it,  it  rightly,  and  from  the  beginning,  seemed  to  the 
priests  grave  and  annoying  to  have  to  divulge  one’s  crimes, 
as  in  a theatre,  before  the  multitude.  Therefore  they  as- 
signed to  this  office  one  of  the  priests  who  was  noted  for 
integrity  of  life,  and  who  was  endowed  with  taciturnity  and 
prudence,  in  order  that  those  who  had  sinned  might  con- 
fess their  acts  to  him.  Then,  according  to  each  one’s  fault, 
what  each  should  do  or  suffer,  he  indicated  by  way  of  pen- 
ance, absolved  them  confessing,  each  one  to  exact  of  himself 
the  punishment  of  his  crime.”  If  we  carefully  peruse  this 
narrative,  we  shall  see  that  Nectarius  abolished,  not  sacra- 
mental and  private,  but  public  confession.  For  it  is  plainly 
stated  that  he  did  away  with  that  office  which  was  estab- 
lished at  the  time  of  the  Novatian  schism,  which  office  was 
no  other  than  of  superintending  public  penance.  Again, 
Nectarius  abolished  that  which  was  causing  scandal.  This 
was,  not  the  betrayal  of  the  woman’s  crime  by  the  priest 
who  had  heard  it  in  the  confessional,  for  neither  the  words 
of  Socrates  bear  that  interpretation,  nor  does  the  testimony 
of  Sozomenus,  showing  how  the  selection  of  the  peniten- 
tiary was  from  among  those  noted  for  “ integrity,  taciturnity, 
and  prudence.”  The  occasion  of  scandal  was,  and  our  oppo- 
nents admit  this,  the  open  avowal,  on  the  part  of  the  woman, 
of  her  criminal  intercourse  with  the  deacon.  Nectarius  there- 
fore abolished  the  practice  which  sometimes  obtained,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  of  publicly  confessing  certain  crimes, 
•according  as  the  permission  of  the  confessor  and  the  fervor 


Digitized  by 


Google 


168 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  the  patent  dictated.  That  Socrates  understood  public* 
confession  to  be  the  subject  matter  of  the  abrogation  is 
plain  from  the  remark  which  he  says  he  made  to  Eudaemon, 
the  instigator  of  the  decree  : “ Whether  or  not  thy  advice 
will  profit  the  Church,  priest,  God  knows.  For  my  part,  I 
see  that  to  each  one  is  now  given  a pretext  for  no  longer 
stirring  up  his  neighbor  on  account  of  his  sins,  and  for  not 
observing  that  precept  of  the  Apostle  which  tells  us  not  to 
communicate  with  the  barren  works  of  darkness,  but  to 
rather  reprove  them.” 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  RITES  AND  CEREMONIES. 

Among  the  many  changes  produced  by  the  spread  of 
Christianity,  that  upon  the  arts  is  not  the  least  notable,  and 
the  first  effect  upon  art  was  a re-establishment  of  the  sub- 
lime. A propensity  towards  the  sublime  as  an  aesthetic 
element,  modified  by  the  Mosaic  and  Christian  dogma  of 
Creation,  and  by  the  consequent  retirement  of  Eastern 
emanatism,  is  observed  in  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  conspicuously  in  the  writings  of  Sts.  Paul  and  John. 
And  although  it  was  reserved  for  later  days  to  witness  the 
maturation  of  the  sublime  in  the  pre-eminently  Catholic  Dan- 
te, and  for  still  more  modern  times  to  be  blessed  by  the  adult 
genius  of  a Michel  Angelo,  we  cannot  arise  from  the  perusal 
of  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  or  any  of  the  early  fathers,  without 
feeling  that  their  souls  were  afire  with  preternatural  elo- 
quence prompted  by  meditation  upon  the  four  great  types 
of  Christian  art,  the  God-Man,  the  Virgin  Mother,  the 
Angel,  and  the  Saint.  These  four  subjects  are  ever  present 
to  the  Christian,  and  it  is  natural  to  him  to  externate  the 
ideas  born  in  his  soul,  now  by  painting,  now  by  sculpture, 
now  by  music,  now  by  ritual.  All  religionists,  of  course,  in* 
a greater  or  less  degree,  experience  this  tendency,  and  in 


/ 


Digitized  by  u.ooQLe 


ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BITES  AND  CEREMONIES.  169 

accordance  with  their  approach  to  truth  in  the  conception 
of  divine  things,  do  they  arise  to  the  sublime,  or  sink  to  the 
commonplace — mayhap,  to  the  deformed,  in  their  artistic 
manifestations.  Influenced  by  her  four  great  types  of  art, 
the  Church  banished  from  the  portals  of  the  sublime  the 
deformities  of  Oriental  symbolism,  substituting  therefor  an 
emblematicism  which  was  simple  at  once  and  dignified.  It 
was  only  when  the  days  of  open  persecution  had  been  for 
a while  shortened,  that  the  - world  found  that  she  who 
claimed  its  mastery  in  the  spheres  of  religion  was  also  its 
mistress  in  the  domains  of  art.  But  even  when  she  lurked 
in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  there  moved  within  her  the  in- 
stinct to  present  to  the  eyes  and  ears  of  her  children  the 
beautiful  ideas  of  eternal  truth  with  which  she  glowed. 
The  damp  and  bare  walls  of  her  subterranean  churches 
were  utilized,  the  slabs  of  her  martyrs’  graves  were  adorned, 
and  the  faithful  could  see  around  them  pictorial  illustra- 
tions of  the  doctrines  they  believed.  Through  the  long 
and  gloomy  corridors  of  the  Catacombs,  on  stated  occasions, 
there  wended  its  pious  way  a torch-lighted  procession  of 
clergy  aijd  of  virgins,  chanting  the  praises  of  the  Lord  and 
His  saints.  Arrived  at  the  chapel  designed  for  the  service 
of  the  day,  the  Pontiff  seats  himself  on  his  throne,  cut  in 
the  solid  rock,  and  by  his  attendant  deacons  is  vested  in 
habiliments  each  one  of  which  has  a deep  and  liturgical 
meaning.  For  he  is  about  to  offer  up  to  God  that  Euchar- 
istic Sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God  which  is  the  centre  of  all 
Catholic  ritual,  and  it  is  the  aim  of  the  Church  that  her 
ritual  shall  be  instructive  of  doctrine  even  in  its  minute  de- 
tails. Here  too,  then,  just  as,  when  circumstances  shall  per- 
mit, she  will  avail  herself  of  architecture  and  sculpture  as 
a means  of  instruction,  does  she  seek  in  her  ceremonies  to 
impress  truth  upon  the  minds  of  men.  The  awful  and  ma- 
jestic rite  is  begun,  and  after  a series  of  prayers  and  cere- 
monies— all  excitant  of  faith  and  devotion  in  the  bystanders 
— it  is  consummated  amid  the  tears  of  many  who  will  never 
participate  in  it  again.  They  will  soon  receive  the  mar- 
tyr’s crown,  and  among  the  causes  which,  under  God’s 
(*race„  will  have  contributed  to  the  enlightenment  of  their 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


170 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


understanding  and  to  the  strengthening  of  their  wills,  will 
be  those  very  ceremonies  which  the  Church  has  used  for 
their  edification. 

And  now  for  the  object  of  this  chapter.  That  the  rites 
of  the  Church  are  deeply  impressive,  many  outsiders  admit ; 
that  some  of  them  are  eminently  beautiful,  all  agree  ; why 
and  how  and  when  they  originated,  is  a matter  of  dispute. 
It  is  not  within  the  province  of  the  historian  to  illustrate 
the  meaning  of  the  Church's  liturgy,  but  it  is  his  office  to 
investigate  a charge  of  unworthy  origin  brought  against  her 
rites.  Of  such  a nature  is  the  accusation  put  forth  by 
Mosheim,  one  of  the  most  worthy,  as  he  is  about  the  most 
impartial  of  our  opponents  in  the  historical  order.  This 
author,  when  treating  of  the  third  century,  reduces  the  origin 
of  Christian  rites  to  the  following  causes.  The  primitive 
worship  of  Christians  was  distinguished  by  simplicity  ; in 
fact,  it  was  so  void  of  ritualistic  tendencies,  that  it  seemed 
to  the  Pagan  mind  to  even  ignore  the  existence  of  God.  To 
avert,  therefore,  the  charge  of  atheism,  the  Christians  intro- 
duced external  paraphernalia  of  which  the  Pagans  were 
fond.  Again,  among  the  apparatus  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental 
worship,  the  chief  respect  was  paid  to  the  mysteries : to  draw, 
therefore,  the  Gentiles  more  easily  away  from  the  temples, 
our  forefathers  in  the  faith  introduced  their  mysteries  and 
sacred  rites.  To  these  alleged  causes,  which  in  last  analysis 
are  based  upon  a mere  “ perhaps,’*  and  might,  therefore,  be 
dismissed  by  a “ perhaps  not,”  Mosheim  assigns  a more 
specious  one.  “ To  these  causes,  add  the  study  of  the 
Platonic  philosophy,  or,  if  you  prefer,  the  popular  supersti- 
tion of  the  Orientals  about  demons,  which  the  Platonists 
had  made  their  own,  and  which  the  Christian  teachers  had 
received  from  these  latter.  From  this  opinion  as  to  the 
nature  and  propensities  of  the  genii,  the  origin  of  many  rites 
is  to  be  sought.  This  idea  called  forth  public  exorcisms,  fre- 
quent fasts,  the  avoidance  of  marriage.  This  idea  dissuaded 
companionship  with  those  not  yet  admitted  to  the  sacred 
font,  or  with  those  who  were  excluded  from  communion  in  di- 
vine things,  since  all  such  were  regarded  as  subject  to  the  do- 
minion of  some  evil  genius.  This  idea,  to  say  nothing  of  other 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  RITES  AND  CEREMONIES. 


17.1  • 


effects,  increased  the  annoyances  and,  punishments  generally 
imposed  upon  sinners  ” (1).  And  in  another  place  (2),  “ The 
Christian  bishops  slightly  changed  the  institutions  and  rites 
with  which  the  Romans,  Greeks,  and  other  people  showed 
their  devotion  and  reverence  towards  the  false  gods,  and  in- 
troduced them  into  Christian  worship,  and  therefore  at  that 
time  there  was  but  little  difference  between  the  public  relig- 
ions of  Romans,  Greeks,  and  Christians.  All  possessed  showy 
vestments,  mitres,  tiaras,  wax  torches,  trumpets,  supplica- 
tions, purifications,  golden  and  silver  vases,  <fcc.M  Let  us 
now  examine  these  causes  which  Mosheim  assigns  as  an 
origin  of  our  Catholic  rites  and  ceremonies.  Firstly,  as  to 
the  desire  of  the  clergy  to  attract  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
who  were  used  to  mysteries . Were  such  a reason  given  for 
the  present  use  in  this  city  of  New  York  of  a certain  pomp 
and  ceremonial,  supposing  of  course  that  they  were  of  late 
introduction,  it  would  not  lack  a certain  speciousness, 
although  it  would  be  little  complimentary  to  the  intellectu- 
al calibre  of  our  Protestant  friends,  and  would  display  very 
little  confidence  in  their  religious  sincerity.  But  when  it 
is  assigned  to  the  third  century  as  a motive  of  Christian 
action,  we  are  asked  to  believe  too  much.  At  that  time  the 
Ohurch  was  in  hiding.  Of  what  use  to  the  object  in  view 
would  have  been  the  introduction  of  rites  when  the  Pagans 
were  excluded,  not  merely  from  the  spectacle,  but  in  most 
cases  even  from  a knowledge  of  the  place  where  it  was  given  ? 
Is  it  not  more  logical  to  admit  that  as  the  Church  ever  taught 
that  God  was  to  be  adored  in  external  worship,  as  well  as  by 
internal  obsequiousness,  so  she  furnished  her  children  with 
the  means  of  fulfilling  the  obligation  ? And  this,  from  the 
yery  nature  of  her  doctrine,  she  was  compelled  to  do,  so  far 
as  circumstances  would  permit,  even  though  there  had 
been  no  calumny  as  to  her  atheism. 

Puerile,  indeed,  is  the  charge  of  imitation  in  the  matter 
of  mysteries.  Mosheim  could  scarcely  have  intended  to 
descend  to  a play  upon  words  when  dealing  with  so  impor- 
tant a matter.  And  yet,  outside  of  the  mere  verbal  analogy, 
there  is  no  similarity  between  the  Pagan  mysteries  and 

(1)  ITMoj'u,  p.  2.  i*.  4.  (2)  2Md.,  hi#t.  Cent . 4,  c.  4. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


172 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  hidden  dogmas  and  sacred  rites  of  the  Christians.  In 
what  were  these  like  unto  the  Eleusinia,  the  Thyestea,  or 
the  Lupercalia  ? But  rooted  deeply  into  the  Christian  re- 
ligion there  were  certain  heads  of  doctrine,  real  mysteries, 
so  called  because  they  were  too  sublime  for  the  caption  of 
human  understanding.  No  need  had  the  Christian  pastors 
to  go  outside  of  their  own  communion  for  what  they  had 
within  in  such  abundance  ; no  need  to  go  to  the  decrepit 
and  sensual  systems  of  Paganism  for  what  the  Redeemer 
had  given  them  in  all  purity  and  sanctity. 

Of  no  greater  weight  is  the  assertion  based  upon  the  affec- 
tion of  many  of  the  early  fathers  for  the  philosophy  of 
Plato.  Deep  indeed  and  all-powerful  would  that  affection 
have  been,  and  weak  indeed  their  respect  for  Christianity, 
if  the  Neo-Platonist  fathers  had  been  led  to  so  radically 
vitiate  the  faith  as  Mosheim  supposes.  But  the  theory  of 
demonology  as  understood  by  the  Church,  and  with  her  by 
these  Neo-Platonists,  was  far  different  from  the  supersti- 
tion of  genii,  &c.,  encouraged  by  ancient  Paganism  and 
modern  Mohammedanism.  Her  exorcisms,  &c.,  are  based 
upon  her  own  theory  derived  from  her  Founder,  and  of  the 
truth  of  which  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  furnish 
abundant  proof.  As  for  the  frequency  of  fasts  having  any 
connection  with  the  Platonic  philosophy,  we  are  at  a loss  to 
account  for  it,  as  all  Pagans  extolled  the  system  of  Lucullus 
as  above  that  of  the  Baptist.  But  there  is  a way  of  account- 
ing for  the  introduction  of  any  rational  system  of  mortifica- 
tion into  the  Christian  discipline,  if  we  reflect  upon  the  ex- 
ample and  teaching  of  Christ.  As  for  avoidance  of  matri- 
mony, the  idea  of  which  Mosheim  derives  from  the  Platon- 
ic affiliations  of  the  early  Christians,  .the  veriest  tyro  in 
sacred  science  knows  that  the  Church  holds  marriage  to  be 
a sacrament,  and  therefore  holy,  but  that,  with  St.  Paul,  she 
teaches  that  in  particular  cases  the  celebitic  state  is  preferable. 
Nor  is  there  any  Platonic  sympathy  displayed  in  the  dis- 
continuance of  association  with  the  excommunicated,  which 
, the  ancient  discipline  so  rigidly  inculcated ; it  is  rather  in 
accordance  with  the  command  of  St.  Paul  whereby  we  were 
not  even  to  give  the  compliment  of  salute  to  a heretic. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BITES  AND  CEREMONIES.  173 

The  entire  theory  of  Mosheim  in  this  matter  is  based  up- 
on the  supposition  that  because  there  exists  a similarity 
between  the  Christian  rites  and  those  of  Paganism,  there- 
fore the  more  modern  system  drew  such  institutions  from 
the  other.  “ Similitudes  are  not  to  be  urged  in  all  points  ” 
is  a very  good  maxim,  but  the  points  of  assumed  similarity 
should  at  least  be  tangible,  and  not  merely  fancied.  Now 
there  is  no  more  likeness  between  the  rites  of  Catholicism 
and  those  of  Paganism  as  practised  in  Rome,  Greece,  and 
Egypt,  especially  when  we  consider  the  symbolic  meaning 
of  the  ceremonies,  than  exists  between  them  and  those  which 
were  once  in  vogue  in  the  temples  of  the  Montezumas. 
And  even  if  we  discovered  a well-founded  similarity,  we 
could  not  logically  infer  a connection,  if  there  were  other 
ways  of  accounting  for  the  origin.  Palma  (1),  in  treating 
of  this  subject,  presents  Mosheim  as  very  neatly  undermin- 
ing his  own  position  in  another  part  of  his  works  (2), 
where  he  expressly  contends  that  because  similarities  are 
found  between  the  Christian  and  Jewish  customs,  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  Church  modelled  her  discipline  up- 
on the  form  of  that  of  the  Synagogue.  “ I easily  believe,” 
says  Mosheim,  “ that  the  Christians  established  many  cus- 
toms which  were  in  use  in  the  Jewish  assemblies,  and  that 
therefore  it  would  not  be  rash  to  say  that  the  Church  is 
similar  to  the  Synagogue.  But  this  similarity  by  no  means 
shows  that  the  Christians  took  from  the  Jews  those  things 
which  are  like  in  form  to  the  Jewish  worship.  For  since 
the  same  end  was  proposed  by  the  Jews  and  Christians  in 
frequenting  their  houses  of  worship,  it  could  not  but  neces- 
sarily happen  that  sometimes  the  Christians  would  do  the 

same  things  as  the  Jews  did the  divine  law  was  to 

be  publicly  promulgated,  and  explained ; the  people  were  to 
be  excited  by  sermons  and  exhortations,  and  to  be  taught ; 
hymns  were  to  be  sung  and  prayers  recited.  For  no  relig- 
ious assemblage,  convened  for  divine  worship,  can  lack  these 
things The  nature  of  things  demanded  these  insti- 

tutions, without  which  religion  could  not  subsist ; not,  how- 

(1)  Hist.  Eccl. , c.  83.  (2)  Inst.  Hist.  Maj .,  sax.  1,  p.  2,  8 9. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


174 


STUDIES  UNCHURCH  HISTORY. 


ever,  the  desire,  which  they  are  said  to  have  had,  of  imitat- 
ing the  Jews.” 

Several  Catholic  writers  assign  a Pagan  origin  to  many 
of  our  rites,  though  not  prompted  by  the  spirit  of  con- 
tempt which  actuated  Calvin,  the  Centuriators  of  Magde- 
burg, Conyers  Middleton,  Buddeus,  Mosheim,  &c.  Among 
such  we  regret  to  notice  Gerson,  Raynaud,  Petau,  Noel 
Alexandre.  But  all  rely  upon  the  similarity  which  they 
find  between  the  Christian  and  Pagan  rites,  which  argu- 
ment, as  we  have  seen,  is  not  conclusive.  As  well  might  it 
be  said  that  since  both  Pagans  and  Christians  eat  and 
drink,  live  under  roofs,  and  cover  their  bodies,  therefore 
the  latter  do  so  in  imitation  of  the  former.  There  are  some 
things  which  men  are  impelled  by  nature  to  do,  and  in 
which  they  need  no  teacher.  Just  so,  many  of  the  sacred 
ceremonies  come  into  use  instinctively,  without  any  exam* 
pie  being  necessary  from  the  more  ancient  religions.  Thus 
nature  prompts  men  to  use  for  the  honor  of  God  those 
things  of  earth  which  seem  to  speak  of  goodness,  of  purity, 
and  of  glory.  Hence  in  nearly  all  religions  the  use  of 
flowers  and  lights.  Even  Puritanism  sought,  for  a time,  ta 
manifest  by  external  signs  the  spirit  of  its  doctrine.  The 
very  simplicity  of  its  worship,  the  barrenness  of  its  temples, 
the  primness  of  countenance  an^l  severity  of  costume  of  its 
followers,  all  were  so  many  ritualistic  expressions  of  the 
sombreness  of  the  Deity  it  adored.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Catholic  religion,  being  pre-emifiently  one  of  joy,  of  love,  and 
of  filial  confidence,  in  a God  who  had  given  so  many  and 
such  proofs  of  love  to  man,  naturally  sought  to  express  its 
feelings  by  the  use  of  everything  in  nature  and  in  art  which, 
otherwise  legitimate,  might  enhance  the  devotion  of  its 
children.  Nature,  and  not  Paganism,  was  its  teacher. 
There  are  certain  passages  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  of 
Theodoret  (1)  which  seem  to  give  weight  to  the  theory  of 
our  opponents.  But  they  only  go  to  show  that  as  the  Pa- 
gans on  certain  days  celebrated  the  memory  of  their  gods 
and  heroes,  so  the  Christians  assigned  other  days  to  the 
memory  of  the  saints.  Tiie  same  might  be  alleged  of  tern- 

(DBaronio,  j/ear44,  nwm.  86. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  RITES  AND  CEREMONIES.  175 


pies,  bv.f  no  one  contends  that  we  owe  to  Pagans  the  idea 
of  a place  of  worship.  The  origin  of  saints’  days  flows 
naturally  from  the  Catholic  dogma  of  their  veneration,  and 
traces  of  such  may  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  without 
recurring  to  Gentile  sources.  But  granted  that  the  Church  : 
wished  to  substitute  her  own  feasts  for  those  of  the  Pagan 
world,  wherein  is  strengthened  the  theory  wc  combat  ? 
Some  ancient  fathers  (1),  commenting  upon  the  Avoids  of 
St.  Paul,  (jcd.y  4,  10,  “ You  observe  days  and  months,  &c  , ’ 
ask  themselves  whether  the  Christians  imitated  the  Jews 
in  the  establishment  of  feast-days,  and  answer  with  a deni- 
al, because  of  the  diversity  of  end  proposed  in  each  case. 
St.  Jerome^says  (2),  We  do  not  celebrate  the  Pascli  of 
the  unlea\rened,  but  of  the  resurrection  and  the  cross ; nor 
have  we,  according  to  the  rule  of  Israel,  seven  Aveeks  in  Pen- 
tecost, but  Ave  venerate  the  advent  of  the  Holy  Ghost.’’  The 
same  father  answers  our  opponents,  Avhen  he  says  to  Vigi- 
lantius,  “ That  Avas  done  for  the  idols,  and  is  therefore  de- 
testable; this  is  done  for  the  martyrs,  and  is  therefore  to 
be  receded.”  And  St.  Augustine  (3),  “ When  these  are 
shoAvn  to  God,  in  accordance  Avitli  His  inspiration  and  teach- 
ing. it  is  true  religion ; but  when  to  the  demons,  in  accord- 
ance with  their  impious  pride,  it  is  a baneful  superstition. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  notice  some  of  the  rites  which 
we  are  said  to  have  derived  from  the  Pagans.  We  shall 
confine  ourselves  to  those  Avhich  in  themselves  are  the 
most  important,  or  which  have  been  placed  in  this  category 
by  authors  of  celebrity  (4).  The  pious  Gerson  so  insists  as 
to  the  Purification  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  (5),  the  ancient 
Romans  being  accustomed  to  carry  candles  in  honor  of  a 
certain  goddess,  and  in  the  purification  of  the  city.  The 
learned  Erasmus.  Melancthon,  and  Gravati,  derive  the 
Christian  idea  of  excommunication  from  the  same  source. 
Polydorus  Vergilius  thus  treats  the  constitution  of  our  | 
hierarchy  and  our  ecclesiastical  polity  ; especially  our  cus- 

(1)  Okigex,uI0.  Cel#u*,  B.  8.  Chrysostom,  horn.  63. 

(2)  Ad.  Apost.  loc.  (3)  Kp.  49.  al.  102,  qu.  3,  n.  18. 

(4)  The  reader  who  is  anxious  for  more  information  will  Und  an  abundance  in  the  vaina* 
hle  dissertation  of  the  Jesuit  Peter  Lazeri,  inserted  bv  Zaecaria  in  *his  Latin  edition  of 
Fleury's  Discipline  ofUod's  Purple,  published  at  Venice  in  1782. 

(5)  Tom.  III.,  p.  474.  ^ 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


176 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tom  of  kissing  the  foot  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff  and  the  hand 
of  a bishop  ; also,  the  “ Ite , missa  est  ” at  the  end  of  Mass. 
Buddeus  classes  together  our  Canonization  of  Saints  and 
the  Gentile  apotheosis  of  heroes.  Angelo  Rocca  gives  a 
Pagan  origin  to  our  prayers  for  the  dead.  Raynaud  (1), 
does  the  same  with  vigils,  the  placing  of  holy  water  at 
the  doors  of  churches,  Rogation  Days,  the  prohibition  of 
marriage  at  certain  periods.  Now  of  all  these  instances  of 
an  apparently  Pagan  origin  on  the  part  of  our  rites,  there 
is  not  one  to  which,  with  more  probability  of  accuracy, 
should  not  be  assigned  as  source  one  of  the  following  : either 
nature,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken ; the  institutes  of 
the  Jews  ; the  words  of  the  Scriptures  ; or  Catholic  dogma 
as  naturally  calling  for  it.  And  here  again  we  must  insist 
upon  the  weakness  of  an  argument  drawn  from  a similarity 
of  rites.  If  such  a reasoning  were  permissible,  then  we 
ought  to  style  even  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  an  imitation 
from  Paganism.  For,  as  Tertullian  says  of  the  devil  (2), 
“ He  also  immerses  some,  and  promises  liis  believers  and 
faithful  ones  an  expiation  from  the  font,”  and  to  extend  the 
parallel  to  matters  of  which  Christ  is  certainly  the  Author, 
“ the  devil  also  celebrates  the  offering  of  bread,  and  has  his 
virgins  and  his  continent  ones.” 

Those  who  assign  a Pagan  origin  to  a single  one  of  the 
Christian  rites  must  lay  aside  any  acquaintance  with  the 
feelings  of  our  ancestors  in  the  faith  towards  the  Gentiles. 
It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  they  held  the  Pagan  system 
in  utter  execration,  and  that  they  harbored  a holy  fear  lest 
by  any  contact  with  anything  belonging  to  the  pest,  they 
should  contract  some  deadly  evil.  How  then  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  they  would  willingly  incorporate  into  their  very 
economy  of  worship,  the  rites  of  the  priests  of  Baal  ? Again, 
we  know  that  of  old  the  fathers  had  to  bear  the  reproach  of 
having  no  temples,  no  images,  no  altars ; that  Origen, 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  Athenagoras,  Minutius,  Arnobius, 
Lact&ntius,  all  seem  to  concede  the  truth  of  the  accusation. 
Did  they  really  possess  no  temples  before  the  year  230,  as 
Tillemont  contends,  and  no  images,  as  Petau  and  Noel 

(1)  Hetorod . Spirit,  part  1,  p.  109.  (2)  De  Praczcript .,  c.  41. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  RIGHTS  AND  CEREMONIES.  177 


Alexandre  hold  ? Then  why  did  they  not  have  those  things 
which  so  soon  afterwards  came  to  be  regarded  as  useful  to 
the  service  of  God  ? It  must  have  been  because  they 
wished  to  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  Gentiles,  whose 
temples,  altars,  and  sculptured  ornaments  were  everywhere 
visible.  As  Petau  rightly  observes  (1),  “ Since  as  yet  the 
Pagan  superstition  was  navigating  under  full  sail,  in  those 
first  days  of  the  Church,  it  was  deemed  better  to  suppress 
and  omit  many  things,  which  were  in  themselves  not  use- 
less and  even  proper ; for  there  was  danger  lest  the  parade  of 
certain  rites  would  give  offence,  bearing,  as  they  did,  some 
similarity  to  those  in  use  by  the  Pagans.”  If  this  be  so, 
can  we  believe  that  the  fathers  deliberately  adopted  the 
Gentile  ceremonies  ? And  how  stands  the  case  if  we  partly 
differ  from  Petau,  and  hold  that  in  many  churches  the  use 
of  images  was  known  ? How  is  it,  if  we  hold  with  Medus 
and  Bingham  that  temples  existed  before  the  year  230  ? 
And  how,  when  it  is  contended  that  the  existence  of  altars 
flows  necessarily  from  the  Catholic  dogma  of  the  Euchar- 
istic Sacrifice  ? Surely  in  this  supposition,  there  must  be 
some  way  of  accounting  for  the  silence  of  the  fathers  when 
accused  of  having  neither  temples,  altars,  or  images.  Bona  (2) 
thinks- it  was  because  the  sanctuaries  of  the  Christians  were 
hidden  and  modest.  Petau  holds  that  they  were  silent  as  to 
the  altars  because  these  were  temporary,  not  permanent. 
Noel  Alexandre  (3)  finds  a reason  in  the  repugnance  of  the 
early  Christians  to  the  theory  of  the  Pagans  that  an  image, 
when  consecrated,  became  the  god  himself  (4).  We  can 
only  believe,  in  the  supposition  that  the  fathers  were  pos- 
sessed of  temples  and  images  (of  altars  there  can  be  no 
doubt),  that  so  profound  was  their  detestation  of  everything 
Gentile,  they  wished,  as  far  as  possible,  to  remove  from 
their  rites  every  similarity  to  those  of  the  hated  supersti- 
tion. We  cannot  therefore  suppose  them  guilty  of  the  adop- 
tion of  Pagan  ceremonies. 

(1)  Incarnation , b.  15.  c.  18,  No.  8.  (8)  Liturgy , b.  1,  c.  19. 

(8)  Cent.  Vin.,  dlss.  6.  (4)  Minutius  Felix  in  Octav. 


Digitized  by 


178 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


CHAPTER  XVL 

JULIAN  THE  APOSTATE. 

Flavius  Claudius  Julianus,  nephew  of  Constantine  the 
Great,  was  born  in  the  year  331.  Although  baptized  and 
educated  as  a Christian,  he  became  a Pagan  when  quite 
young,  but  kept  the  perversion  a secret.  Constantius  II. 
was  very  suspicious  of  him,  and  often  imprisoned  him,  but 
in  the  year  355,  he  proclaimed  him  Caesar,  and  gave  him 
the  hand  of  his  sister  Helena.  Having  defeated  the 
German  invaders  of  Gaul,  and  driven  them  across  the 
Rhine,  Julian  became  the  idol  of  the  soldiery,  and  when,  in 
360,  Constantius  ordered  him  to  send  his  best  troops  for  a 
campaign  against  Persia,  they  proclaimed  him  emperor. 
He  was  marching  on  the  capital,  when  the  death  of  Con- 
stantius left  him  undisputed  master  of  the  empire.  It  was 
only  then  that  he  openly  avowed  his  abandonment  of  Christi- 
anity, and  entered  upon  a course  of  persecution.  But  his 
system  was  quite  different  from  that  adopted  by  the  olden  Pa- 
gan emperors;  he  aimed  rather  at  undermining  Christianity 
than  at  openly  persecuting  its  votaries.  He  did  not  com- 
pel people  to  sacrifice  to  the  gods  ; he  rather  enticed  them 
to  do  so.  Thus,  he  ordered  his  statue  to  be  surrounded  by 
images  of  the  gods  ; then  the  Christians  found  themselves 
in  a dilemma.  If  they  paid  it  any  sign  of  respect,  the  hom- 
age was  regarded  by  him  and  his  partisans  as  given  also  to 
the  idols  ; if  they  refused  the  token,  they  could  be  held  for 
treason.  On  one  occasion,  some  soldiers  had  burnt  incense 
before  the  imperial  image,  in  gratitude  for  a gift  of  pocket- 
money.  When  they  discovered  what  was  then  imputed  to 
them,  they  rushed  to  the  palace,  and  before  the  eyes  of  Ju- 
lian, they  flung  the  coins  out  of  the  windows,  protesting 
themselves  Christians,  and  ready,  if  necessary,  for  martyr- 
dom. The  enraged  emperor  ordered  them  to  be  beheaded, 
but,  recovering  his  usual  subtlety,  and  envying  them  such 
glory,  he  commuted  the  sentence  to  exile.  Another  means 
of  annoying  t!:?  f'vltVi;!,  and  of  corrupting  the  integrity  of 


Digitized  by  o.ooQLe 


JULIAN  THE  APOSTATE. 


179 


the  weak-minded — one  which  has  proved,  in  modern 
times,  far  more  successful  than  bloody  persecution — was 
adopted  by  the  imperial  philosophaster.  Under  the  reigns 
of  the  late  emperors  the  Christians  had  arisen  to  the  high- 
est posts  of  the  state,  both  civil  and  military,  and  in  the 
great  republic  of  letters,  they  had  shone  with  a glory  which 
far  surpassed  that  of  their  Pagan  compeers.  We  do  not 
read  that  he  entirely  forbade  the  army  to  the  faithful — their 
prowess  was  as  serviceable  to  the  state  in  those  days  as  it 
is  in  more  modern  times — but  the  higher  posts  were  to  be 
opened  to  them  no  longer.  They  were  to  be  shut  out  also 
from  the  great  world  of  literature  ; probably  he  hoped  to  be 
able  one  day  to  reproach  them  with  their  ignorance,  as  more 
modern  persecutors  have  done  in  the  case  of  their  victims. 
He  promulgated  a law,  in  accordance  with*  which,  the  chil- 
dren of  Christians  could  receive  no  academic  education. 
Upon  the  consequences  of  such  a law,  no  comment  is  nec- 
essary ; the  reader's  acquaintance  with  modern  English 
and  Irish  history  is  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  form  a cor- 
rect opinion  upon  them.  If  Julian  thus  looked  forward  to 
the  mental  degradation  of  future  generations,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  he  at  once  interdicted  to  Christians  all  entrance 
into  the  judiciary,  or  even  the  bar.  But  he  was  not  content 
with  these  open  attacks  upon  the  faith  ; he  descended  to 
puerilities,  which,  even  if  successful,  could  have  had  no 
effect  upon  the  victims.  Thus,  he  ordered  the  food,  exposed 
for  sale  in  the  markets  of  Constantinople,  to  be  mixed  with 
that  which  had  been  offered  to  the  idols.  When  the  faith- 
ful discovered  the  fraud,  they  subsisted  as  best  they  could 
on  what  they  had  at  home,  and  Julian,  probably  fearing  the 
market-women,  put  a stop  to  the  trick.  At  Antioch,  his 
agents  poured  the  “ water  of  purification”  ( aqua  lustralix) 
from  the  temples  into  all  the  wells,  but  the  Christians  used 
the  wells,  remembering  perforce  the  words  of  the  Apostle, 
1 Cor.  10,  “ Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  eat,  asking 
no  questions  for  conscience’s  sake.” 

Julian  was  also  guilty  of  violent  acts  of  insult  to  Christi- 
anity. At  Antioch,  he  broke  into  the  magnificent  basilica 
constructed  by  his  uncle,  urinated  on  the  altar,  and  carried 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


180 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Sacramental  vessels  to  his  treasury.  He  ordered  the 
worship  of  Apollo  to  be  revived  in  the  wood  of  Daphne, 
wherein  reposed  the  relics  of  the  martyr-bishop  of  Antioch, 
Baby  la,  and  the  people  solemnly  transferred  the  body  to  the 
city,  singing,  with  the  Psalmist,  confusion  to  all  the  adorers 
of  idols.  He  threw  down  the  statue  at  Caesarea  Philippi, 
which  had  been  erected  to  Christ  by  the  woman  cured  of  a 
bloody  flow,  and  put  up  one  of  himself  (1).  Although  Juli- 
an preferred  to  use  insidious  rather  than  aggressive  means 
for  the  overthrow  of  Christianity,  there  were  several  mar- 
tyrdoms during  his  reign.  Publia,  an  abbess,  Juventin, 
Maximiu,  and  Artimius,  are  mentioned  by  Theodoret  as  dying 
for  the  faith.  If  not  by  liis  order,  at  least  with  the  conniv- 
ance of  Julian,  the  Pagans  of  Ascalon  ripped  open  the 
bowels  of  many  priests  and  nuns,  and  filling  them  with  grain, 
threw  the  multilated  and  quivering  frames  to  hogs  to  be 
devoured.  At  Arethusa,  the  bishop,  Mark  (2)  who  had  once 
saved  the  life  of  Julian,  was  subjected  to  many  and  grievous 
vexations.  The  regard  which  Julian  had  for  the  lives  of 
his  Christian  subjects,  and  for  his  own  laws  of  toleration, 
may  be  known  from  his  having  exiled  a Pagan  prefect  who 
had  presumed  to  upbraid  some  other  Pagans  for  killing 
some  Christians.  The  apostate  tried  hard  to  win  over  Sts. 
Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  and  made  the  latter’s 
brother,  Caesarius,  prefect  of  the  imperial  treasury.  But 
the  two  saints  spurned  all  bribes  and  solicitations  for  them- 
selves. and  influenced  Caesarius  to  do  likewise.  It  is  nota- 
ble that  although  Julian  affected  a profound  contempt  for 
Christians,  whom  he  designated  as  “Galileans,”  yet  he  never 
ceased  to  propose  their  purity  as  a model  to  his  Pagan 
priests. 

The  most  important  event  of  Julian’s  reign  was  the  at- 
tempted restoration  of  the  great  temple  at  Jerusalem,  in 
order  to  falsify  the  prediction  of  our  Lord.  About  300 
years  had  passed  since  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by 

[a>  Sozoraenus  relates  that  the  statue  of  Julian  was  immediately  struck  by  lightning,  and 
demolished.  The  people  collected  the  fragments  of  the  statue  of  our  Lord,  and  reverently 
placed  them  In  the  main  church. 

(2)  Mark  was  at  one  time  an  Arlan,  but  he  must  at  this  time  have  again  become  orthodox, 
for  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  and  Theodoret  are  strong  in  his  praise,  when  speaking  of  this1 
part  of  his  life. 


Digitized  by  doodle 


JULIAN  THE  APOSTATE. 


181 


* 


Titus,  when  the  apostate,  aided  by  the  Jews,  set  about  his 
task.  But  all  his  efforts  only  served  to  further  verify  tho 
prophecy  of  Christ.  We  shall  take  occasion  to  speak  more 
fully  of  this  matter  at  the  close  of  our  dissertation.  Al- 
though the  destruction  of  Christianity  was  the  main  object 
of  Julian  s reign,  he  was  compelled  by  exigencies  of  state  to 
pause  in  his  work  in  the  year  363.  The  war  with  Persia 
•claimed  his  attention ; therefore,  swearing  to  finish  the  ruin 
-of  the  Church  on  his  return,  he  made  his  preparatory  sacri- 
fices to  the  gods,  and  set  out  on  what  proved  his  last  cam- 
paign. W ith  his  usual  intrepidity,  he  was  leading  a charge, 
in  the  very  first  battle,  when  he  was  mortally  wounded  by 
an  arrow.  According  to  Theodore t and  St.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen,  he  threw  some  of  his  blood  towards  Heaven, 
-crying,  “ Galilean,  Thou  hast  conquered.”  Ammianus  Mar- 
ceilinus  says  nothing  of  this  incident,  but  his  silence  casts 
'/o  improbability  upon  the  story.  Nazianzen  knew  Julian 
thoroughly,  having  studied  with  him  at  Athens,  and  been 
on  terms  of  intimacy  with  him,  and  he  certainly  deemed  the 
bitter  words  consonant  with  the  character  of  the  dying  man. 
And  it  is  natural  that  Ammianus,  a Pagan,  should  have 
hesitated  to  report  this  avowal  of  defeat  on  the  part  of  his 
hero,  especially  since  the  Pagans  had  just  been  flattering 
themselves  on  the  approaching  ruin  of  the  Christian  religion, 
for  the  edict  of  persecution  had  already  been  sent  into  Af- 
rica. The  last  moments  of  Julian  were  spent  in  an  inter- 
view with  Maximus,  a philosopher  and  magician,  to  whose 
influence  was  due,  more  than  to  anything  else,  his  apostasy. 
This  “philosopher”  had  involved  the  ardent  young  man, 
when  a student  of  24  years  of  kge,  in  the  mysteries  of  as- 
trology ; he  attached  him  to  himself  by  flattering  his  ambi- 
tion, and  prognosticating  for  him  a universal  empire.  Lead- 
ing him  to  believe  in  the  theory  of  metempsychosis,  he 
persuaded  him  that  the  soul  of  Alexander  the  Great  resided 
in  his  body  ; hence,  perhaps,  much  of  his  rash  intrepidity  in 
battle,  and  hence,  certainly,  much  of  his  love  of  Paganism. 
When  Julian  died,  he  was  only  32  years  of  age. 

Since  the  character  of  Julian  was  a mass  of  contradictions, 
it  is  not  strange  that  writers  have  formed  upon  him  very 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


182 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


different  judgments.  Chastellux,  the  author  of  the  treatise 
on  “ Public  Happiness/’  says  of  him,  “ Sometimes  Julian 
essays  to  copy  Marcus  Aurelius,  sometimes  Trajan,  and 
again  Alexander.  His  works  are  those  of  a sophist  and  of 
a rhetorician.  In  his  habits,  he  is  a Stoic  ; in  the  temple 
he  is  an  idolater,  and  in  his  cabinet,  a bad  Platonist,  seek- 
ing to  corrupt  the  doctrines  of  that  sect  by  an  unworthy 
alliance  with  magic.”  The  following  portrait,  drawn  by  St. 
Gregory  of  Nazianze^i,  is  as  interesting  as  it  is  reliable  : 
“Most  persons  only  knew  Julian  after  he  made  himself  known 
by  his  actions,  and  by  his  abuse  of  absolute  power  ; but  I 
knew  him  from  the  time  of  our  acquaintance  at  Athens,  and 
I never  found  a sign  of  good  in  him.  He  ever  rolled  his 
eyes  from  side  to  side,  and  had  a ferocious  aspect.  He 
could  not  keep  his  limbs  at  rest,  he  was  continually  dis- 
tending and  contracting  his  nostrils,  in  sign  of  anger  or  of 
contempt,  and  he  was  constantly  addicted  to  sharp  sayings 
and  cool  buffooneries.  His  laugh  was  a bellow.  He  would 
at  the  same  moment  grant  or  refuse  a favor  with  equal  ease, 
talked  without  rhyme  or  reason,  put  inopportune.questions, 
and  gave  answers  far  from  the  point.  But  why  do  I enter 

into  such  detail  as  to  his  exterior? those  who 

were  with  us  (at  Athens)  can  witness,  that,  when  I noted 
his  characteristics,  I said  that  the  Roman  state  was  nourish- 
ing a very  dangerous  serpent.  So  I said,  hoping,  at  the 
same  time,  that  I was  deceived  ; and  withotflr  doubt,  it  were 
better  that  I had  been,  and  the  earth  not  been  desolated  by 
so  many  evils.”  Le  Beau,  in  his  History  of,  the  Lower  Em- 
pire, thus  speaks  of  Julian : “ We  can  perceive  in  his  soul 

every  play  of  vanity.  As  greedy  of  glory  as  the  miser  is  of 
riches,  he  seeks  it  in  the  smallest  of  objects.  His  temper- 
ance is  pushed  to  extremes,  and  becomes  a theatrical  virtue. 
A great  portion  of  his  subjects  never  received  any  justice 
from  him  ; had  he  truly  been  the  father  of  his  people,  he 
would  have  ceased  to  hate  the  Christians,  and  would  not 
have  made  war  upon  them  from  the  moment  he  became 
their  emperor.  He  spared  their  lives  or^ly  in  his  words  and 
edicts.  Julian  is  the  model  for  such  persecuting  rulers  as- 
wish  to  escape  reproach  bv  an  appearance  of  sweetness  and 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


JULIAN  THE  APOSTATE. 


183 


• 

equity.”  From  what  has  been  said,  it  can  be  readily  seen 
that  the  Christians  of  his  day  had  some  excuse  for  identify- 
ing Julian  with  the  persecutor  mentioned  in  an  enigmati- 
cal manner  in  the  13th  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse  (1). 

We  now  come  to  the  principal  event  in  the  life  of  Julian, 
his  failure  in  the  attempted  rebuilding  of  the  temple  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  apologists  of  Christianity  have  always  drawn 
an  argument  to  prove  its  divinity,  from  its  miracles  and 
from  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  connected  with  it.  To 
this  latter  class  belongs  the  argument  deduced  from  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  temple  by  Titus.  It  came  to  the 
mind  of  Julian  that  by  rebuilding  this  temple,  he  would 
render  void  the  prophecy  of  Christ,*  and  thus  shake  the 
Christian  system  to  the  core.  But  God  ordained  that  he 
was  not  to  succeed.  All  that  money  could  produce  was  at 
hand,  the  Jews  flocked  from  all  parts  to  aid  in  the  work, 
and  in  a short  time  the  new  foundations  were  well  under 
way.  But  suddenly,  there  burst  from  the  bosom  of  the 
earth  a sea  of  fire,  which  drove  the  workmen  from  their 
labor,  and  consumed  all  the  preparations  for  the  task.  The 
reality  of  this  event  is  impugned  by  many  Protestant  au- 
thors, and  by  all  the  foes  of  the  miraculous.  It  is  for  us  to 
show  that  our  reasons  for  believing  the  above  to  be  an  incon- 
testable fact  of  history,  are  solid  and  convincing.  And  first, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Ammianus  Marcellinus  (d.  395), 
a Pagan,  a courtier  and  admirer  of  Julian,  and  a fellow- 
soldier,  who,  speaking  of  Julian’s  widespread  activity,  says 
that,  “ wishing  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  his  reign  by 
the  magnitude  of  his  works,  he  thought  to  restore,  at  an 
immense  outlay,  a certain  magnificent  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
which,  after  many  destructive  combats  during  a siege  by 
Vespasian  and  Titus,  had  with  difficulty  been  captured ; 
and  he  assigned  the  task  to  Alypius  of  Antioch,  a former 
pro-prefect  of  Britain.  While,  therefore,  Alypius  was  en- 
ergetically pushing  the  affair  forward,  with  the  assistance 
of  the  rector  of  the  province,  there  burst  forth,  at  the  foun- 
dations, fearful  masses  of  flames,  which,  by  their  frequent 

(1)  The  Abb6  Baudouin,  in  an  explanation  of  the  Apocalypse,  published  at  Paris,  in  1784, 
contends  that  the  Greek  term  apoxtatex,  now  Julians  distinctive  surname,  Rives  exactly 
Ibe  number  666,  according  to  the  numerical  value  of  the  letters,  as  assigned  by  the  Greeks. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


184 


8TUDTES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORi. 


assaults,  rendered  the  place  inaccessible,  burning  up  the* 
laborers  as  often  as  any  approached.  lu  this  manner,  the 
element  obstinately  repelling  them,  an  end  was  made  to  the 
design.’’ 

Is  it  likely  that  a man  in  the  position  of  Marcellinus 
would  have  published  a fact  so  triumphant  for  the  Chris- 
tians, had  he  been  in  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  its  truth? 
Again,  St.  Cyril  was  almost  on  the  spot  at  the  time,  for  he 
was  then  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Socrates  (1)  says  of  him, 
“ At  that  time,  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  mindful  of  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  which  Christ  confirmed  in  the  Holy 
Gospels,  plainly  predicted  to  many  hearers  that,  in  a short 
time,  not  one  stone  above  another  should  remain  of  that 
temple,  and  thus  would  the  oracle  of  the  Saviour  be  ful- 
filled.” Socrates  is  confirmed  by  Rufinus.  This  passage 
shows  us  that  the  Christians  of  the  Holy  City  fully  appre- 
ciated the  motives  of  Julian,  and  when  Socrates  speaks  of 
the  prediction  of  St.  Cyril,  he  plainly  proves  that,  a short 
time  after  it,  must  have  occurred  some  event  which,  by  de- 
stroying what  had  remained  of  the  ancient  foundations  of 
the  temple,  fulfilled  the  Biblical  prophecy.  Another  testi- 
mony to  the  truth  of  this  miracle  is  found  in  St.  Ambrose’s 
reprimand  to  Theodosius  for  wishing  to  compel  Christians 
to  rebuild  a Pagan  temple.  “ Hast  thou  not  heard,  O em- 
peror,” he  said  (2),  “that  when  Julian  ordered  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem  to  be  rebuilt,  those  who  were  doing  the  work 
were  burnt  by  divine  fire  ? Dost  thou  not  beware,  lest  it 
may  do  so  now  ? ” and  St.  John  Chrysostom,  speaking  of 
the  miracle,  sayfe  (°.),  “The  emperor  Julian,  although  he 
was  so  madly  devoted  to  the  design,  yet  feared,  that  if  he 
proceeded  any  further  therein,  the  fire  would  descend  upon 
his  own  head;  and,  with  all  his  people,  he  ceased  from  the 
work.  And  now  if  you  go  to  Jerusalem,  you  will  see  the 
bare  foundations,  and  if  you  ask  the  reason,  you  will  hear 
only  this  : ‘We  are  all  witnesses  to  this  thing;  in  our  day, 
only  a little  wliil  * ago,  it  happened  ; reflect  upon  the  won- 
derful victory.  This  did  not  occur  under  the  pious  Ccesars,. 

(1)  History^  />.  3,  r.  *J0.  <2)  Kyist.  11,  to  Iheodosius. 

(3)  (jration  a yainst  Jews  atui  Gentiles. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


JULIAN  APOSTATE. 


185- 


lest  some  might  say  that  the  Christians’coming  had  perfect- 
ed the  work  ; but  it  happened  when  we  were  in  affliction, 
when  all  liberty  was  withdrawn,  when  Paganism  flourished, 
when  the  faithful  were  either  hiding  at  home  or  had  fled  into 
the  solitudes  and  avoided  the  open  places.  It  happened,  in 
fine,  so  that  there  would  be  left  no  pretext  to  impudence/  ” 
Looking  over  these  testimonies  of  Sts.  Cyril,  Chrysostom, 
and  Ambrose,  we  cannot  perceive  in  them  any  lack  of  weight 
with  which  a candid  mind  would  find  fault,  or  any  innate 
weakness  which  the  rules  of  criticism  can  discover.  St. 
Cyril  was  a man  of  cool  judgment,  and  was  thoroughly 
cognizant  of  the  aspirations  and  acts  of  Julian;  he  was  tha 
Christian  leader  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  attempted 
restoration  of  the  temple  ; and,  finally,  there  was  no  reason 
for  Socrates’  introduction  of  his  prediction  unless  it  was 
well  known  by  all  that  the  prediction  was  connected  with 
some  act  which  fulfilled  it.  That  act  is  accounted  for  in  the 
supposition  of  the  truth  of  the  miracle  in  question  ; it  re- 
mains unknown,  and  therefore  Socrates  was  guilty  of  hold- 
ing up  Cyril  as  a |alse  prophet,  if  we  set  the  miracle  aside. 
St.  Chrysostom  exhibits  too  much  confidence  in  his  remarks- 
to  a people  who  must  have  been  well  informed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  his  discourse,  for  us  to  suppose  him  in  error.  Tho 
same  holds  good  of  St.  Ambrose  in  his  rebuke  of  Theodo- 
sius. We  have  already  alluded  to  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
as  a valuable  authority  for  anything  connected  with  the 
reign  of  Julian. 

The  following  testimony,  taken  from  his  4th  Oration 
against  the  apostate,  fully  confirms  that  of  Marcellinus  : 
“ Julian  pitted  the  Jews  against  us.  He  availed  himself  of 
their  ancient  fickleness  and  of  their  intense  hatred  for  us, 
to  perfect  his  design ; asserting  that,  according  to  their 
books  and  traditions,  they  were  destined  to  return  to  their 

own  land,  and  to  renew  their  ancestral  rites Those 

whp  have  studied  their  doings  narrate  how  their  wives  not 
only  stripped  themselves  of  all  their  ornaments  and  ma- 
tronal insignia,  that  they  might  contribute  to  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  building,  but  even  carried  earth  in  their  bosoms* 
sparing  neither  their  exquisite  robes  nor  their  delicate 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


186 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


frames  in  what  they  deemed  a work  of  piety — regarding  all 
else  as  subordinate  to  this  enterprise.  When,  however, 
forced  by  a dire  confusion  and  by  a sudden  tremor  of  the 
undulating  ground,  they  rushed  to  a neighboring  temple  to 
pray  and  to  escape  the  danger,  ....  they  found,  according 
to  some,  the  doors  suddenly  closed  and  bolted  by  an  invisi- 
ble power One  thing  certainly  all  do  narrate,  and  hold 

for  certain,  that  when  they  were  striving  by  main  force  to 
secure  an  entrance,  a fire  burst  forth  out  of  the  temple,  and 
consumed  some  of  them  entirely,  and  destroyed  the  princi- 
pal limbs  of  others But  more  wonderful  yet,  and  sig- 

nificant, a light  shone  forth  in  the  heavens,  and  forming  a 
cross  over  the  earth,  showed  to  all  alike  that  name  and  that 
figure  which  were  once  held  in  contempt.  Even  now,  those 
who  were  witnesses  of  this  miracle  show  their  garments 
burnt  by  the  sign  of  the  cross.” 

It  is  difficult  for  the  incredulous  to  institute  any  positive 
argumentation  against  the  truth  of  this  miracle.  Precon- 
ceived opinions  and  violent  religious  prejudice  may  give 
birth  to  conjectures,  but  they  are  none  of  them  even  plau- 
sible when  compared  with  tha  positive  testimonies  we 
possess  in  its  favor.  About  the  strongest  of  the  negative 
arguments  which  can  be  adduced  against  it  is  offered  by 
Basnage  (1).  St.  Cyril,  he  says,  who  was  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem at  the  time  of  the  alleged  miracle,  and  predicted, 
according  to  Socrates,  that  the  prophecy  of  Christ  was  soon 
to  be  fulfilled,  has  nevertheless  nowhere  given  us  any  account 
of  this  important  event.  This  argument,  though  weak, 
might  be  of  some  weight,  could  its  author  show  that  any  of 
the  works  of  St.  Cyril,  which  we  possess,  were  written 
after  the  attempted  restoration  of  the  temple.  But  this 
cannot  be  proved ; nay,  that  all  of  the  works  of  St.  Cyril, 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  were  composed  before  the 
event  in  question,  is  conceded  by  the  erudite  in  such  matters. 
Thus,  the  Catechisms  belong  to  the  year  347  ; the  Epistle  to 
Constantins  to  the  year  351.  These  are  all  the  works  of  St. 
Cyril  that  we  have,  for  the  epistle  to  St.  Augustine  on  the 
Miracles  of  St.  Jerome , which  is  found  in  the  works  of  the 

(1)  of  thr  Jnrn%  h.  G,  r.  IS. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


THE  DONATIST  HERESY. 


187 


great  doctor,  is  manifestly  a forgery,  as  is  shown  by  its  own 
absurdities,  and  by  the  fact  that  St.  Cyril  died  thirty  years 
before  St.  Jerome.  Basnage  relies  considerably  upon  the 
discrepancies  between  the  narrations  of  the  miracle  as  given 
by  Socrates,  Sozomenus,  and  Theodore t.  But  the  diversi- 
ties are  merely  in  accidentals,  not  in  essentials,  and  just  as 
in  the  case  of  the  gospels,  so  in  purely  historical  matters, 
accidental  variations  of  authors,  if  united  with  concord  in 
essentials,  are  no  justification  for  their  being  rejected. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  DONATIST  HERESY,  AND  THE  JUDGMENT  OF  POPE  MELCHIADE8. 

In  the  year  311,  a certain  Spanish  woman  named  Lucilla,' 
living  at  Carthage  in  Africa,  was  observed  to  kiss,  with 
superstitious  veneration,  the  bones  of  a man,  who,  though 
probably  a martyr,  had  not  been  formally  recognized  as 
such  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  Being  reproved  by 
Cmcilian,  the  Archdeacon  of  Carthage,  her  religious  devo- 
tion proved  less  strong  than  her  vanity,  and  she  bided  her 
time  for  revenge.  About  this  time  Mensurius,  bishop  of 
Carthage,  having  been  called  to  Rome  by  Maxentius  to  an- 
swer the  charge  of  hiding  a deacon  who  had  written  against 
the  tyrant,  was  removed  by  death,  and  Csecilian  was  elected 
to  his  place.  Before  his  departure  for  Rome,  Mensurius 
had  consigned  the  sacred  vessels  to  the  care  of  certain 
seniors  of  the  church,  and  these  now  refused  to  obey  the 
requisition  for  them  made  by  the  new  bishop.  To  the  vindic- 
tive ex-devotee,  Lucilla,  and  the  avaricious  old  stewards  of 
the  church,  both  parties  ready  for  anything  whicli  promised 
the  ruin  of  CflBcilian,  was  soon  given  the  aid  of  Botrus  and 
Cffilesius,  two  priests  who  had  each  been  disappointed  in 
the  hope  of  succeeding  Mensurius.  This  was  the  origin  of 
the  Donatist  schism,  the  fruit  of  an  alliance  between  femi- 
nine ire,  avarice,  and  ambition.  But  an  excuse  was  want- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


188 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ing  to  tlie  enemies  of  Caecilian,  and  that  was  soon  found. 
His  episcopal  consecration  had  been  received  at  the  hands 
of  Felix,  bishop  of  Aptonga,  who  was  accused  of  being  one 
of  those  unfortunates  who,  in  the  time  of  persecution,  had 
given  up  the  gospels  to  the  enemies  of  Christianity.  There- 
fore, the  factious  contended,  the  consecration  of  Caecilian 
was  null  and  void.  They  also  asserted  that,  during  the 
persecutions,  Caecilian  had  prevented  food  from  being  car- 
ried to  certain  confessors  in  prison.  Their  first  step  was  to 
procure  the  deposition  of  Caecilian,  but  to  bring  that  about, 
they  were  compelled  to  fall  into  a great  inconsistency. 
They  invoked  the  aid  of  Sefcundus,  primate  of  Numidia, 
himself  one  of  the  most  noted  of  “ traitors,”  as  those  were 
styled  who  had  surrendered  the  sacred  books.  This  pre- 
late assembled  a synod  of  seventy  bishops,  “ traitors  ” like 
himself,  but  whose  sins  the  money  of  Lucilla  had  covered 
(1).  In  this  pseudo-synod,  Caecilian  was  condemned,  and 
in  his  place  was  thrust  Majorinus,  a creature  of  the  precious 
Lucilla.  The  intruder  received  consecration  from  Donatus, 
bishop  of  a place  called  “Black  Cottages,”  “ Casae  Nigrac ,” 
and  this  prelate  may  be  regarded  as  the  prime  inciter  of 
the  new  schism.  To  another  Donatus,  however,  the  new 
schismatics  preferred  to  give  the  honor  of  having  named 
their  body ; to  the  one,  that  is,  who  succeeded  Majorinus  in 
the  usurped  see  of  Carthage.  The  identity  of  name  some- 
times caused  confusion  in  the  mind  of  St.  Augustine,  as  he 
confesses  in  his  Retractations , hi , c.  21.  In  spite  of  the  ap- 
parent triumph  of  his  enemies,  the  holy  Caecilian  could,  as 
St.  Augustine  says  (2),  “ care  nothing  for  their  conspiring 
multitude,  when  he  saw  himself  united  by  letters  of  com- 
munion with  the  Roman  Church,  in  which  always  flourished 
the  principality  of  the  Apostolic  Chair.”  His  foes  also 
dreaded  the  affection  of  Constantine  for  their  victim,  and  in 
order  to  lessen  it,  they  used  their  influence  with  Anulinus, 
the  proconsul  of  Africa,  to  have  presented  to  the  emperor, 
then  in  Gaul,  the  libels  they  had  composed  against  the  in- 
tegrity of  Caecilian.  They  also  begged  of  Constantine  that 

(1)  See  St.  Augustine;  Heresies , c.  69;  Epist.  162.  Also  Optatus , against  ParmenUm , 
b.  1. 

(2)  Epistle  No.  168. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


*.  IIE  DONATIST  HERESY. 


189 


he  would  assign  Gallic  judges  to  settle  the  Carthaginian 
troubles,  “ for  in  Africa  there  are  contentions  between  us 
and  the  other  bishops/*  they  added.  According  to  Optatus, 
when  the  emperor  had  read  the  documents,  he  angrily  cried 
out,  “ You  ask  judgment  of  me,  a secular,  who  myself  ex- 
pect the  judgment  of  Christ  ? ” However,  he  wrote  to  Pope 
Melchiades  asking  him  to  decide  the  case,  and  requested 
three  Gallic  prelates,  Maternus  of  Cologne,  Mannus  of 
Arles,  and  Kheticus  of  Autun,  to  go  to  Home  to  assist  the 
Pontiff.  A council  was  accordingly  held  in  the  year  313, 
in  the  Lateran  palace,  then  the  residence  of  the  empress 
Fausta,  and  to  it  w ere  summoned,  besides  the  three  Gallic 
bishops,  fifteen  Italians.  After  a patient  hearing  of  both 
CfBcilian  and  Donatus,  the  synod  condemned  the  latter 
(him  of  the  “ Black  Cottages  ”)  and  declared  the  former  legit- 
imate bishop  of  Carthage.  As  for  those  dioceses  in  which 
the  Donatist  troubles  had  introduced  two  rivals  for  the  epis- 
copal chair,  it  was  decreed,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  that  pri- 
ority of  consecration  should  decide  each  case,  “for  the  other 
bishop,  another  flock  should  be  provided.”  The  Donatists 
again  had  recourse  to  secular  influence,  telling  the  emperor 
that  the  case  of  Felix  of  Aptonga,  the  consecrator  of  Ceeci- 
lian,  had  not  been  decided,  and  that  there  had  been  too  few 
bishops  in  the  Roman  synod.  At  this  new  appeal,  says 
Optatus,  Constantine  exclaimed,  “ Such  rabid  audacity  of 
fury ! Just  like  Gentiles,  they  put  forth  an  appeal.”  Think- 
ing he  might  thus  calm  the  raging  schismatics,  he  now  or- 
dered Elianus,  the  new  proconsul,  to  inquire  into  the  case 
of  Felix,  and  the  result  was  his  acquittal  of  the  charge  of 
“betrayal.”  But  the  Donatist  fury  was  by  no  means  as- 
suaged, and  at  the  request  of  the  emperor,  another  synod  was 
called  in  the  year  314.  This  council  met  at  Arles,  and  was 
attended  by  two  hundred  bishops,  the  Papal  legates  presid- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  new  Pontiff,  Sylvester  I.  (1)  Again  | 
was  the  cause  of  Ciecilian  triumphant,  but  again,  with  few 
exceptions,  were  the  Donatists  obstinate.  From  the  sen- 
tence of  the  Church  they  again  appealed  to  Constantine,  and 

(1)  Slmiond  and  Launoy  thought,  from  the  large  number  of  prelates  attending  this 
synod,  that  it  was  the  plenary  council , the  authority  of  which  St.  Augustine  frequently 
quotes  against  the  Donatists.  That  the  holy  Doctor  means  the  Council  of  Nice  is  fully 
Droved  by  Alexandre. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


190 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


from  tnis  time  the  emperor  vacillated  in  their  regard. 
While  he  condemned  them  in  Milan  in  the  year  316,  he  was 
finally  conquered  by  the  obstinacy  which,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  “ great  Donatus  ° (the  intruder  of  Carthage), 
they  continued  to  display;  and  at  first  content  with  dimish- 
ing  the  severity  of  his  laws  against  them,  he  soon  allowed 
them  full  liberty.  At  his  death,  the  government  of  Africa 
fell  to  Constans.  Under  this  emperor,  benignity  was  at  first 
the  order  of  the  day  towards  the  Donatists,  but  when  he 
found  them  degenerated  into  worse  than  highway  robbers, 
carrying  fire  and  sword  into  the  homes,  not  only  of  Catholics,  > 
but  even  of  their  own  sect,  he  made  use  of  the  army  to  re- 
store order.  When  the  schismatic  bishops  saw  the  ruin  of 
the  armed  bands  which  they  had  employed,  some  of  them 
fled,  others  again  were  exiled.  Among  these  latter  was 
Donatus  of  Carthage.  Most  of  the  sectarians  now  returned 
to  the  communion  of  the  Church,  and  during  the  following 
reign  of  Constantius,  there  was  comparative  peace  in  relig- 
ious matters  in  Africa.  Donatus  of  Carthage  died  in  the  year 
350,  and  his  place  was  filled  by  Parmenian ; St.  Cmcilian 
had  died  in  348,  and  to  him  succeeded  Gratus,  and  then  lies- 
titutus.  Under  Julian  the  Apostate,  the  Donatists  were 
naturally  caressed  as  internecine  foes  of  Christianity.  Not 
only  were  they  recalled  from  exile,  and  restored  to  their 
churches,  but  many  of  the  basilioas  of  the  Catholics,  which 
they  took  with  the  armed  hand,  were  secured  to  them. 
With  the  accession  of  Yalentinian  I.,  their  audacity  met 
with  a check,  that  emperor  passing  very  severe  laws  to  keep 
it  within  limits.  At  the  invasion  of  Africa  by  Gildo  in  the 
year  397,  the  Donatists  had  reason  for  joy,  as  he  removed  all 
restraint  from  their  murderous  proclivities.  Honorius,  how- 
ever, put  another  stop  to  the  slaughter  of  the  orthodox,  and 
sincerely  endeavored  to  bring  about  a permanent  peace.  He 
sent  into  Africa  a tribune  named  Marcellinus,  a man  of  high 
character,  who,  in  the  year  411,  held  at  Carthage  that  famous 
Conference,  of  which  St.  Augustine  gives  a full  history,  and 
in  which  he  participated.  In  this  assembly,  both  parties 
pleaded  their  causes  with  full  liberty  for  three  days,  and 
after  due  consideration,  Marcellinus  passed  judgment  in 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  DONATI8T  HERESY. 


191 


favor  of  the  Catholics,  and  it  was  confirmed  by  Honorius  on 
Jan.  30,  412.  Terrified  at  the  severe  penalties  pronounced 
against  them  by  the  emperor,  and  which  were  sternly  exe- 
cuted by  Dulcitius,  the  successor  of  Marcellinus,  most  of 
the  Donatists  yielded,  and  before  many  years  the  sect  had 
vanished.  It  would  seem  that,  violent  and  audacious  as  it 
was,  this  heresy  made  no  headway  outside  of  Africa.  It 
tried  to  obtain  a foothold  in  Home,  and  there  sustained 
successively  six  bishops,  men  of  ability  and  of  grave  manners. 
But  they  met  with  no  success,  not  obtaining  the  use  of  even 
one  church  in  the  city.  Indeed,  from  the  fact  that  their 
conventicles  were  held  in  the  mountains  of  the  neighborhood, 
they  were  known  among  the  Romans  as  “ Mountaineers.” 
We  pass  now  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Donatists.  In  re- 
gard to  Baptism,  they  held  that  it  was  only  valid  when  given 
in  the  Church.  Since  they  contended  that  the  true  Church 
was  to  be  found  only  in  their  communion,  the  rest  of  Chris- 
tendom having  fallen  away  from  purity  of  doctrine,  they  re- 
baptized  such  perverts  as  they  succeeded  in  enticing  to  their 
fold.  As  to  their  tenets  concerning  the  Church,  St.  Augus- 
tine says  they  differed  from  Catholics  rather  as  to  the  body 
than  as  to  the  head.  By  contact  with  the  betrayers  of  the 
gospels,  and  by  communion  with  the  w.icked  in  general,  the 
Church  had  been  reduced  nearly  unto  death,  and  was  then 
confined  to  Africa,  and  restricted,  indeed,  to  the  faction  of 
Donatus.  Africa,  they  said,  was  the  southern  country  where 
the  Spouse  of  the  Canticles  was  represented  as  resting 
in  the  midday.  According  to  St.  Augustine,  Donatus  of 
Carthage  erred  in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  teaching  that  the 
three  Persons  were  of  the  same  substance,  but  that  the  Son 
was  less  than  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  less  than  the 
Son.  He  did  not  succeed,  however,  in  inculcating  this  theory 
upon  his  followers.  As  for  the  morals  and  general  conduct 
of  the  Donatists.  they  seem  to  have  been  of  the  most  horri- 
ble nature.  Optatus  charges  them  with  literally  throwing 
the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  dogs,  “ not  without  a token  of  the 
divine  judgment : for  the  dogs  went  mad,  and  as  though 
their  masters  were  robbers  and  strangers,  tore  them  to 
pieces,  using  their  teeth  against  the  violators  of  the  Holy 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


192  STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 

Body/’  According  to  the  sajne  author,  when  they  did  npt 
overthrow  the’  Catholic  altars,  they  practiced  a sacrilegious 
rite  of  scraping  the  surface,  to  indicate  that  purification  was 
necessary  on  account  of  the  Catholic  contagion.  Whenever 
they  obtained  possession  of  a church,  or  of  sacred  vessels, 
vestments,  &c.,  they  reblessed  them  for  the  same  reason.  Of 
so  exalted  a character  was  their  religious  frenzy,  that  thou- 
sands of  them  took  their  own  lives,  deeming  the  act  a mar- 
tyrdom, and  justifying  it  by  the  example  of  Razias,  Mciech. 
II.  Like  most  heretics,  the  Donatists  were  very  hostile  to 
monks,  and,  according  to  St.  Augustine,  were  fond  of  say- 
ing, “What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  * monk’  ? Show  us 
in  the  Scriptures  this  word ‘monk.’  ” (1) 

In  treating  of  the  Donatist  heresy,  we  cannot  omit  some 
remarks  upon  the  judgment  given  by  Pope  Melchiades  in 
the  synod  held  at  Rome  in  the  year  313,  as  both  Protestant 
and  Gallican  writers  have  contended  that  the  history  of  the 
Papal  connection  with  the  condemnation  of  this  sect  goes 
to  weaken  the  doctrine  of  the  irrefragability  of  Pontifical 
decision^.  And  firstly,  Basnage  and  Mosheim  hold  that 
Pope  Melchiades  acted,  in  this  decision,  as  a delegate  of  the 
emperor  Constantine,  and  not  in  his  own  right,  &s  the  su- 
preme judge  in  matters  of  faith.  But  we  know  from 
Optatus,  that  when  the  prince  was  approached  by  the  sec- 
tarians, he  cried  out,  “ You  ask  of  me,  a secular,  to  give 
judgment,  when  I myself  await  the  judgment  of  Christ?” 
And  to  the  complaining  Donatus,  after  the  Roman  synod, 
he  answered,  “ O mad  audacity  of  fury ! Just  as  do  the 
Gentiles,  they  put  forth  an  appeal.”  We  also  know  that 
when  Constantine  took  cognizance  of  the  case  after  the 
Council  of  Arles,  it  was  with  disgust  at  the  audacity  of  the 
Donatists,  and  with  the  intention  of  “ afterwards  asking  the 
pardon  of  the  bishops  ” for  daring  to  judge  of  sacred  things 
(2).  If  such  were  the  sentiments  of  the  emperor  as  to  the 
respective  provinces  of  the  ecclesiastic  and  the  secular,  is  it 
credible  that  he  would  try  to  make  a delegate  of  the  Pon- 
tiff? Had  the  power  of  Melchiades  been  merely  vicarious, 
would  he  have  joined  with  himself  the  fifteen  Italian  bisb 

(l)  On  Psalm  132.  (2)  Augustine,  epist.  168. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  DONATI8T  HERESY. 


193 


ops  whom  the  prinoe  had  not  named  ? Again,  those  were 
given  by  Constantine  as  judges,  whom  the  Donatists  had 
asked  for,  namely,  the  three  Gallic  prelates,  not  Melchiades 
and  the  fifteen  Italians.  And  if  Constantine  had  thought 
himself  possessed  of  any  authority  in  the  premises,  would 
he  have  sent  these  Gauls  all  the  way  to  Rome,  especially 
when  he  himself  was  then  in  Gaul?  But  St.  Augustine  cer- 
tainly regarded  the  Pontiff,  not  as  an  imperial  delegate, 
but  as  exercising  his  own  supreme  judicial  prerogative  in 
the  Roman  synod,  for  he  says  of  Constantine,  “He  con- 
ceded the  other  Arletaa  judgment,  not  Itecause  it  was  necessary , 
but  yielding  to  their  perversity , and  wishing  in  every  way  to  re- 
press their  impudence " (1).  If  the  synod  of  Arles  was  not 
necessary,  then  certainly  Melchiades  had  acted  as  supreme 
judge.  Finally,  if  the  Pontiff  only  judged  in  this  Donatist 
matter,  as  the  vicar  of  Constantine,  how  is  it  that  Csecilian 
was  able,  when  and  how  he  wished,  to  carry  his  case  to 
the  Apostolic  See  ? 

A question  is  raised  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Donatists 
appealed  to  the  emperor  from  the  decision  of  Pope  Melchi- 
ades. We  have  seen  how  they  complained  of  it,  and  how 
the  Council  of  Arles  was  assembled,  in  a vain  attempt  to 
pacify  them.  Alexandre  contends  that  this  complaint  was 
of  the  nature  of  an  appeal ; Yalois,  Noris,  and  Sirmond  hold 
that  they  only  appealed  from  the  Council  of  Arles.  We 
may  at  once  remark  that  the  very  nature  of  an  appeal,  if 
judicial  forms  are  to  be  at  all  respected,  precludes  the  sit- 
ting in  the  new  court  of  those  judges  against  whose  previ- 
ous decision  the  appeal  is  made.  But  we  learn  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Arletan  synod  that  in  it  were  seated  as  judges, 
besides  the  Roman  Pontiff  through  his  legates,  five  of  the 
very  bishops  who  had  attended  the  Roman  synod.  There- 
fore, it  is  plain  that  at  Arles  there  could  have  been  no  ap- 
peal from  the  sentence  of  the  Pontiff.  Against  this  conclu- 
sion is  adduced  the  authority  of  Optatus,  who  plainly  says 
that  the  Donatists  appealed  from  the  Roman  synod  to  Con- 
stantine, that  prince  answering,  “ O mad  audacity  of  fury, 
Ac.*’  But  Optatus  was  mistaken,  for  he  plainly  shows,  by 

(1)  Epi*t.  162. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


194 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


making  no  men  don  of  the  synod  of  Arles,  that  he  regarded 
the  letter  in  question  as  sent  by  Constantine  to  the  pre- 
lates of  the  Roman  synod.  We  know  that  it  was  sent  to  the 
Arletan  prelates  from  this  passage  of  St.  Augustine : “Nor 

did  the  Christian  emperor  so  dare  to  receive  the  tumultuous 
and  deceitful  complaints,  as  to  himself  judge  of  the  decision 
of  the  bishops  who  had  sat  at  Rome.  But  he  assigned 
other  bishops,  from  whom,  however,  they  preferred  to  ap- 
peal ; for  which,  as  to  how  he  detested  them,  you  have  heard.” 
These  last  words  refer  to  that  exclamation  “ O mad  audaci- 
ty, <fcc.”  It  is  plain  then  that  the  letter  in  which  the  em- 
peror used  this  expression  was  sent  to  the  prelates  of  Arles/ 
and  therefore,  the  testimony  of  Optatus  must  be  excluded. 
According  to  Optatus,  the  Donatists  appealed  from  that  sy- 
nod to  which  Constantine  addressed  the  quoted  words,  and 
that  synod  was  the  one  of  Arles. 

To  the  most  casual  reader  of  the  events  we  have  been 
narrating,  at  once  occurs  a question  as  to  the  relationship 
subsisting  between  the  Roman  synod,  and  the  Council  of 
Arles.  Did  the  latter  synod  reconsider  the  judgment  given 
by  Pope  Melchiades,  and  if  so,  was  this  reconsideration  un- 
dertaken without  the  consent  of  the  then  Pontiff,  Sylvester  I.? 
Alexandre  held  that  the  latter  supposition  is  improbable , but 
the  Roman  censors  applied  to  his  proposition  the  remark, 
“ Neither  question  nor  conclusion  pleases  us.  The  question 
does  not,  because  it  is  to  be  supposed,  not  discussed,  that 
Councils  caunot  reconsider  causes  of  faith  already  adjudged 
by  the  Supreme  Pontiff ; the  conclusion  does  not,  because 
it  says, 4 it  is  probable,’  while  nothing  is  more  certain.”  Be- 
fore the  Council  of  the  Vatican  settled  the  question  of  Pa- 
pal infallibility,  the  Gallican  theologians  were  fond  of  this 
matter  of  the  Arletan  synod,  and  such  Protestant  writers  as 
trouble  themselves  at  all  about  Church  authority  have  ever 
pointed  to  it  as  a weak  spot  in  the  Roman  line  of  defence. 
One  of  the  best  writers  in  defence  of  the  irreformability  of 
Papal  decisions  on  faith,  is  Cardinal  Orsi.  In  his  apposite 
work,  refuting  the  allegations  of  Bossuet,  he  shows  that 
the  cause  of  Csecilian,  having  been  decided  by  Pope  Melchi- 
ades, was  no  longer  a subject  matter  for  retractation  ; that 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  DONATIST  HERESY. 


195 


it  could  not  have  been  reconsidered  without  the  permission 
of  the  Holy  See  ; and  that  the  cause  of  Cmcilian,  of  which 
Augustine  speaks  in  a passage  adduced  by  Bossuet,  and  to 
be  now  noticed  by  us,  was  not  one  of  those  causes  which  be- 
long to  the  Universal  Church.  Cardinal  La  Luzerne,  in 
his  book  on  the  Gallican  “ Declaration’’  of  1682,  opines 
that  the  arguments  of  Orsi  are  not  conclusive.  Equally 
with  the  bishop  of  Meaux,  La  Luzerne  relies  greatly  upon  the 
following  passage  of  St.  Augustine  (1) : “ Let  us  suppose  that 
all  the  bishops,  who  judged  at  Rome,  were  not  good  judges. 
There  yet  remained  a plenary  Council  of  the  whole  Church, 
in  which  the  cause  of  these  judges  could  be  agitated,  in  or- 
der that  their  sentence  might  be  abrogated,  if  they  were 
convicted  of  a wrong  decision.”  This  shows,  say  the  Galli- 
can authors,  that,  according  to  St.  Augustine,  there  re- 
mained a general  Council  in  which  the  Pontiff s decision 
might  be  rescinded,  and  though  that  Council  did  not  re- 
scind it,  yet  the  cause  of  Cmcilian  was  settled  with  no  less 
authority  because  the  judgment  of  Melchiades  received  the 
approbation  of  the  Church.  But  this  plenary  Council,  of 
which  Augustine  speaks,  could  not  have  been  held  without 
the  consent  of  the  Pope,  or  without  his  presidency,  either 
personal  or  by  means  of  legates.  And  if  a general  Council, 
with  the  Pope  at  its  head,  takes  up  a cause  already  defined 
by  the  Pontiff,  and  with  the  Pope’s  consent  and  participant 
action,  repeats  the  Pontifical  decision,  it  does  not  follow 
that  either  Pontiff  or  bishops  deem  the  judgments  of  the 
Holy  See  a matter  for  conciliar  revision.  It  is  one  thing  to 
take  up  a decision,  in  order  to  assent  and  submit  to  it,  and 
another  to  subject  it  to  a critical  and  judicial  discussion. 
When  we  come  to  treat  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus,  Chalce- 
don,  and  the  third  Constantinopolitan,  we  shall  see  that 
the  fathers  read  the  decrees  of  the  pontiffs,  actuated  by  the 
former,  not  the  latter  motive.  If  then,  in  the  passage  of 
Augustine,  the  holy  doctor  declares  that  to  the  Donatists 
yet  remained  the  authority  of  a general  Council,  we  must 
not  conclude  that  he  believed  that  the  said  synod  could  re- 
vise the  judgment  of  Melchiades.  He  wished  to  press  the 

(1)  Epist.  43,  alias  162,  to  Glorius  Eleusius,  r.  7,  n.  19. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


196 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Donatists  to  the  wall  by  showing  them  that  the  whole 
Church  was  against  them.  We  have  already  heard  him 
say  that  the  emperor  yielded  to  the  Donatists  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  Council  of  Arles,  “ not  because  it  was  necessary,  but 
ceding  to  their  perversity,  and  wishing  in  every  way  to  curb 
their  impudence.”  When,  then,  he  alludes  to  a possible 
future  plenary  Council,  he  means  to  say  that  if  such  a 
synod  were  to  take  up  the  judgment  of  Melchiades,  its  unan- 
imous assent  would  show  the  Donatists  that  those  were 
“ good  judges”  indeed  who  pronounced  sentence  in  Rome. 
It  will  not  be  inopportune  to  here  introduce  a passage  of 
Optatus  which  plainly  shows  that  he  did  not  deem  the  de- 
cision of  Pope  Melchiades  revisable  by  a Council  (1).  He 
speaks  of  the  absolution  of  Caecilian  “ by  the  sentence  of 
Melchiades.  through  which  the  trial  was  closed,”  and  says 
that  the  two  bishops  sent  by  the  Pope  into  Africa  to  pro- 
mulgate his  decree,  did  so,  saying  that  “it  could  not  be  abro- 
gated ; they  thus  communicated  it  to  the  clergy  of  Caecilian, 
and  returned.” 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Arianism,  and  the  Council  of  Nice. 

Scarcely  had  the  persecution  of  brute  force  been  brought 
to  an  end  by  the  accession  of  Constantine  to  the  imperial 
throne,  wrhen  the  Church  was  called  upon  to  withstand  the 
attacks  of  a more  insidious  enemy.  If  not  in  one  shape, 
then  in  another;  if  not  in  one  place,  then  in  another,  the 
Church  upon  earth  must  be  ever  militant.  The  new  enemy 
came  in  the  shape  of  the  most  radical  heresy  which  to  this 
day  she  has  ever  encountered,  and  the  new  error  soon  made 
proportionately  greater  inroads  upon  her  flock  than  any 
other  had  done  before,  or  has  done  since  that  time.  But 
with  all  its  apparent  successes,  in  spite  of  the  active  a^nd 
enthusiastic  aid  of  the  secular  power,  that  great  heresy  has 
vanished. 

(1)  Dnnaiist  Schism,  b.  1,  n.  24. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ARIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE. 


197 


Arius  was  born  in  Libya,  and  was  subject  to  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria.  He  was  of  a nature 
to  win  the  affections  of  men — his  manners  were  grave  but 
gentle;  he  was  modest  in  his  bearing,  dress,  and  conversa- 
tion. • In  dialectics,  he  was  a master.  Several  years  before 
he  turned  his  attention  to  innovation,  he  had  acquired  some 
experience  as  a schismatic,  having  joined  the  followers  of 
Meletius  of  Lycopolis,  when  that  bishop  refused  to  submit 
to  his  deposition  by  his  superior,  St.  Peter  of  Alexandria. 
Abandoning  the  schism,  Arius  received  deaconship  at  the 
hands  of  the  latter  prelate,  but  when  St.  Peter  excommuni- 
cated the  Miletians,  the  young  deacon  became  so  vituperative 
that  he  was  soon  involved  in  the  same  sentence.  After  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Peter,  his  successor,  Achilla,  restored  Arius 
to  communion,  and  probably  raised  him  to  the  priesthood 
(1).  At  the  death  of  this  prelate  the  future  lieresiarch  aspired 
to  the  vacant  see,  and  when  he  saw  Alexander  preferred  by 
the  clergy,  he  was  devoured  by  envy.  He  commenced  to 
^disseminate  Lis  errors  as  to  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God 
about  the  year  317  (2).  According  to  St.  Epiphanius,  he 
noon  counted  for  his  disciples  one  bishop,  Secundus  of  Pen- 
tapolis,  seven  priests,  and  seven  hundred  nuns ; however, 
St.  Alexander,  in  an  encyclical  epistle,  speaks  of  only  four- 
teen of  such  disciples.  They  were  soon  condemned  by 
Alexander,  and  Arius  fled  for  a time  into  Palestine.  In  or- 
der to  popularize  his  tenets,  he  now  struck  upon  the  idea  of 
reducing  them  to  poetical  shape,  and  setting  the  verses  to 
popular  music.  He  took  for  his  model  Sotades,  an  old 
Egyptian  poet,  with  whom  the  mob  was  familiar.  Under  the 
name  of  Thalem , a mixture  of  obscenity  and  distorted  the- 
ology was  soon  chanted  in  the  streets  and  public  places,  and 
thus  the  new  religion  was  sprung  upon  humanity.  His  seven 
hundred  nuns  were  probably  of  considerable  help  to  the 
enterprising  theologist,  and  he  soon  received  quite  an  im- 
portant acquisition  from  the  same  devout  sex  in  the  person 
of  the  imperial  Constantia,  sister  of  Constantine.  The 
patronage  of  this  lady  was  of  great  advantage  to  the  new 

(1)  According  to  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  Arius  was  ordained  by  Alexander. 

(2)  SL  Jerome  dates  the  rise  of  Arlanism  from  the  year  321 ; a falsified  codex  of  Lactanttbi 
places  it  before  the  persecution  of  Llcinlus,  about  310. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


198 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


heresy,  for  she  possessed  more  than  her  due  share  of  influ- 
ence at  court.  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  now  held  a synod  iu 
Bythinia,  and  sent  out  a letter  to  all  his  brethren  of  the 
episcopate,  entreating  them  to  communicate  with  the  Arians, 
and  to  compel  Alexander  to  do  the  same ; in  this  epistle  he 
also  congratulates  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  on  having  under- 
taken the  “ defence  of  the  truth.”  Many  and  desperate  were 
the  arts  used  by  the  friends  of  the  new  doctrine  to  gain  over 
the  emperor,  but  he  decided  to  request  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
to  convoke  a General  Council,  of  the  Church.  Accordingly, 
in  the  year  325,  there  assembled  at  Nice  of  Bythinia  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  under  the  presidency  of  the 
legates  of  Pope  Sylvester,  Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova,  and 
Vitus  and  Vinceut,  priests.  In  this  (Ecumenical  Council 
the  doctrine  of  Arius,  as  to  the  non-consubstantiality  of  the 
Son  with  the  Father,  was  condemned  ; a symbol  of  faith — a 
Creed — was  issued,  and  in  it  was  inserted  the  apposite  word 
“ Homoousion.”  This  Council  also  decided  the  vexed  ques- 
tion as  to  the  time  of  the  Paschal  celebration,  establishing  it 
on  the  Sunday  following  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  March 
moon.  It  also  edited  twenty  disciplinary  canons,  on  the 
sixth  of  which  we  shall  have  something  to  say.  At  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Council  the  emperor  was  present,  but  was 
placed  below  the  fathers,  and  took  his  seat  only  when  they 
gave  the  signal  of  permission.  The  expenses  of  the  prelates 
were  defrayed  by  the  imperial  treasury.  The  sentiments 
held  by  Constantine  as  to  the  relative  positions  of  priesthood 
and  empire  are  plainly  indicated  by  the  following  remarks 
made  by  him  during  the  Council,  when  the  Arians  presented 
to  him  certain  petitions,  tending  to  draw  him  over  to  their 
side.  Having  ordered  the  petitions  to  be  burnt  in  full 
synod,  he  thus  addressed  the  bishops  (1) : “ God  has  estab- 
lished you  as  priests,  and  given  you  power  to  judge  us,  and 
hence  we  are  properly  judged  by  you  ; you,  however,  cannot 
be  judged  by  men  ; wherefore,  among  yourselves  await  the 
judgment  of  God  alone,  and  let  your  differences,  whatever 
they  may  be,  be  reserved  for  divine  examination.  For  you 
have  been  given  to  us  as  gods  by  God,  and  it  is  not  proper  for 

U)  Rufinus,  IJM.%  b.  1,  r.  i. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ARIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE. 


199 


man  to  judge  gods,  but  only  Him  of  whom  it  is  written  : 
God  has  stood  in  the  synagogue  of  the  gods,  and  in  their 
midst  God  judges.”  Two  only  of  the  most  violent,  and  per- 
haps the  most  sincere,  Arians,  refused  to  sign  the  symbol  of 
faith,  Secundus  of  Ptolemaide,  and  Theonas  of  Marmarica ; 
even  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  feigned  submission  (1). 

After  the  condemnation  of  Arius,  the  emperor  ordered 
him  into  exile,  but  in  the  year  330,  at  the  intercession  of 
Constantia,  then  at  the  point  of  death,  he  sent  for  him  and 
accorded  him  an  interview.  Being  asked  whether  he  would 
assent  to  the  Nicene  creed,  he  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
Requested  to  put  his  Creed  into  writing,  he  handed  the 
prince  an  equivocal  formula,  which  could  easily  be  inter- 
preted in  an  heretical  sense.  With  the  permission  of  Con- 
stantine, Arius  now  returned  to  Alexandria,  bearing  letters 
from  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  urging  St.  Athanasius  to  ad- 
mit the  apparently  repentant  priest  into  communion.  But 
the  inflexible  bishop  would  not  yield,  even  though  the  em- 
peror followed  up  his  endorsement  of  the  request  by  threat*? 
to  depose  and  exile  him.  In  the  year  335,  many  bishops, 
principally  of  the  Arian  faction,  assembled  at  Jerusalem 
for  the  dedication  of  the  magnificent  temple  built  by  Con- 
stantine. Requested  by  the  emperor  to  examine  the  sym- 
bol of  Arius,  they  pronounced  it  orthodox.  Finally,  in 
the  year  336,  Constantine  called  the  heresiarch  to  the  capi- 
tal, and  ordered  the  bishop,  Alexander,  a firm  defender  of 
the  Nicene  faith,  to  accord  communion  to  him.  Force  was 
being  used  to  effect  this  nefarious  purpose,  when  Arius  was 
suddenly  stricken  with  death.  But  with  its  founder,  the 
heresy  did  not  disappear.  The  Arian  sympathy  of  the 
emperor  Constantius  secured  the  condemnation  of  St- 
Athanasiusin  the  synods  of  Arles  (353)  and  Milan  (355),  and 
before  long  St.  Jerome  was  obliged  to  cry  out  that  the  world 
was  half  Arian.  On  the  death  of  Ynlens  (378)  the  heresy 
began  to  decline  in  the  East,  and  after  the  General  Council 
of  Constantinople,  it  lost  all  hold  in  those  parts.  But  the 
barbarous  tribes  of  Germany  long  clung  to  it.  Its  last 

(1) Athanasius,  KpUtt.  on  decrees  of  Nice;  Thkodoret, b.  1,  c.  19;  8t.  Jkromk,  Dta- 
. Ingue  against  the  Luciferians. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


200 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


refuge  was  among  the  Lombards,  but  with  king  Liutprand 
(744)  it  died  out. 

Arius  asserted  that  the  Son  of  God  was  a creature,  and 
not  God  by  nature  ; that  although  He  existed  before  all 
ages,  yet  He  was  not  co-eternal  with  the  Father.  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia  endeavored  to  persuade  Constantine  that  this 
doctrine  was  not  antagonistic  to  Catholic  faith,  that  the 
whole  question  was  one  of  verbal  subtlety.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Arius  denied  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  when  he  de- 
nied the  Consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  He 
also  erred  in  regard  to  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  as- 
serting that  the  Word  took  unto  Itself  a body  without  a 
soul ; that  the  office  of  soul  was  supplied  by  the  Divinity 
(1).  He  perverted  the  doxology,  singing  “ Glory  to  the 
Father,  through  the  Son,  in  the  Holy  Ghost.”  St.  Augus- 
tine (2)  says  that  Arius  rebaptized  his  perverts  from  Cathol- 
ieism,  but  he  seems  to  be  alone  in  the  assertion.  . 

Arianism  met  the  inevitable  fate  of  all  heresies,  and  was 
^soon  cut  up  into  many  faction^.  Of  these  there  were  three 
principal  sects.  First,  were  the  Anomoeians,  so  called  be- 
cause they  contended  that  the  Son  was  Anotnoios , that  is, 
dissimilar  to  the  Father.  Not  only,  according  to  them, 
was  the  Son  not  equal  to  the  Father,  but  he  was  in  no  way 
similar.  The  principal  leaders  of  this  sect  were  Aetius, 
Eunomius,  and  Euzoius  of  Antioch.  Then  came  the  Sem- 
iarians,  who,  while  they  denied  the  Consubstantiality  ( horn - 
puma)  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  yet  held  that  He  was 
similar  (liomoiousios)  in  all  things,  even  in  substance.  The 
chiefs  of  this  sect  were  Basil  of  Ancyra,  George  of  Laodicea, 
and  Eustathius  of  Sebaste.  Finally  are  to  be  mentioned 
the  Acacians,  who  drew  their  name  from  Acacius,  bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Palestine.  These  differed  from  the  Anomoeians 
only  in  name,  and  abstained  from  asserting  a thorough  dis- 
similarity between  Father  and  Son  only  when  circumstances 
of  interest  compelled  them  ; when,  however,  they  were 
withheld  by  fear  of  Constantius,  who  abhorred  the  An- 
omoeians, they  said  the  Son  was  not  Consubstantial,  nor 
similar  in  substance,  to  the  Father,  but  only  similar. 

(1)  Theodoret,  Hwrtt.  Fab.,  c.l : Athanasius,  Advent  of  Oirist . 

(2)  On  Heresies. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ARIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE. 


201 


Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Several  questions  are  to  be  considered,  and,  first  of  all,  the 
convocation  of  the  Council.  The  adversaries  of  the  Holy 
See  contend  that  the  Council  was  not  convoked  by  Pope 
Sylvester,  but  by  the  emperor  Constantine,  and  this  asser- 
tion they  support  by  passages  from  Eusebius,  Socrates,  The- 
odoret,  Nicephorus,  and  by  the  synodical  epistle  which  the 
Council  sent  to  the  church  of  Alexandria,  in  which  the  fath- 
ers say,  “ Since,  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  command  of 
the  most  sacred  emperor  Constantine,  who  has  called  us 
together,  from  various  provinces  and  cities,  the  great  and 
holy  Nicene  Council  is  assembled.”  Similar  expressions 
with  regard  to  the  Council  of  Nice  occur  in  the  IMafion  of 
the  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  to  the  emperors  The- 
odosius and  Valentinian,  and  in  the  remarks  of  Justinian  in 
the  1st  Collation  of  the  Fifth  General  Council.  Our  ances- 
tors in  the  faith,  therefore,  say  the  adversaries  of  Rome,  be- 
lieved that  the  right  of  calling  an  (Ecumenical  Council  re- 
sided in  the  emperor,  not  in  the  Pope.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Constantine  paved  the  way  for  this  Council,  that  he 
invited  to  it  the  bishops  of  the  world,  that  he  treated  them 
as  his  guests,  that  he  assisted  at  the  sessions,  that,  in  fine, 
he  cast  around  it,  by  way  of  protection,  the  strong  arm  of 
the  secular  power.  From  the  fact  of  ancient  authors  grate- 
fully acknowledging  these  services  of  the  emperor,  and  hence 
using  the  term  “ convocation”  in  regard  to  his  invitation,  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  in  their  minds  the  convoking 
authority  of  Pope  Sylvester  was  ignored.  The  fathers  of 
the  Council  of  Sardica  (347)  used  the  same  word  with  re- 
gard to  the  action  of  the  emperors  Constans  and  Constan- 
tius,  and  yet  St.  Athanasius  (1)  tells  us  that  the  Council 
was  called  by  Pope  Julius.  In  the  Eighth  General  Council 
(869)  the  Eastern  vicars  said  that  the  emperor  Basil,  imi- 
tating the  old  emperors,  had  called  the  synod,  but  we  know 
from  the  letter  of  Pope  Adrian  IL  to  that  sovereign,  which 
was  read  in  the  first  session,  that  the  Pontiff  convoked  the 
Council.  “ We  wish,”  said  the  Pope,  “ through  your  pious- 
exertions,  a numerous  synod  to  be  assembled  at  Constan- 
ts l';  i'f.  to  i'dltarias. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


202 


8TUDIE8  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tinople.”  And  the  Papal  legates  used  these  words,  “ The 
most  pious  and  most  Christian  emperor,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  his  predecessors,  sent  his  most  noble  embassadors 
to  Rome,  to  ask  for  a synod."  That  the  fathers  of  the  Sec- 
ond General  Council  (381)  regarded  the  convocation  of  such 
assemblies  as  the  prerogative  of  the  Holy  See,  is  shown  by 
their  Synodical  Letter  to  Pope  Damasus,  in  which  they  say 
that  they  have  come  to  Constantinople  in  obedience  to  the 
Pontiff  s letters  to  Theodosius.  Finally,  with  regard  to  the 
-convocation  of  the  Nicene  Synod,  the  fact  of  the  Pontifical 
legates  presiding  over  its  deliberations,  the  humble  attitude 
-of  Constantine  during  its  sessions,  and  his  own  words  al- 
ready quoted,  go  to  show  that  the  emperor  considered  him- 
self as  bound  to  facilitate  the  work  of  the  Church,  but  felt 
that  he  possessed  no  authority  in  the  premises.  Had  the 
sovereign  been  regarded  at  that  time  as  enjoying  the  right 
of  convoking  Councils,  Hosius  would  scarcely  have  used 
the  following  words  to  Constantius:  “ Concern  thyself  not 

with  ecclesiastical  affairs,  nor  teach  us  in  such  matters,  but 
rather  learn  from  us.  To  thee  God  has  committed  the 
empire,  to  us  He  has  given  the  things  of  the  Church ; and 
as  he  who  reviles  thy  government,  contradicts  the  divine  or- 
dinance, so  do  thou  beware,  lest  by  taking  to  thyself  the 
things  of  the  Church,  thou  becomest  guilty  of  a great  crime. 
Give,  it  is  written,  to  Caesar  that  which  is  Caesar’s,  and  to 
God  that  which  is  God’s.  It  is  not  right  for  us  to  hold 
empire  upon  earth,  nor  hast  thou,  emperor,  any  jurisdic 
tion  over  incense  or  sacred  things.*’ 

In  treating  of  the  presidency  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  we 
propose  to  show  that  the  Papal  legates  not  only  presided, 
but  that  they  did  so,  precisely  because  of  their  office  as 
representatives  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff.  With  regal'd  to 
the  presidency  of  Hosius,  we  have  from  Athanasius  (1), 
“ In  what  synod  was  he  not  the  leader  and  standard-bearer  ? 
What  church  does  not  retain  monuments  of  his  presidency  ?” 
Socrates,  in  book  1.  chan  9,  giving  the  names  of  the  fathers 
of  Nice,  begins  thus:  ‘ In  this  Council  were  present  Hosius, 
bishop  of  Cordova;  Vitus,  and  Vince ntius,  priests ; Alexander, 

(I)  A vology  for  /ito  Flight. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


AKIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE. 


203 


hishop  of  Egypt,  Eustathius  of  great  Antioch,  Macarius  of 
Jerusalem,  Harpocration,  Cynon,  and  others,  whose  names, 
&c.'f  Unless  Hosius,  Yitus.  and  Yincentius,  were  presiding 
officers,  why  does  Socrates  place  their  names  before  those 
of  the  incumbents  of  the  great  sees  of  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
and  Jerusalem  ? Hosius  was  simply  bishop  of  insignificant 
Cordova,  and  the  other  two  were  not  even  bishops.  Hincmar, 
Archbishop  of  Rheims  (d.  882>,  when  writing  against  his 
nephew.  Hincmar  of  Laudun — and  speaking  of  the  Nicene 
Couinilsays:  ‘ Ovei  which,  in  the  place  of  Sylvester, presided 
xiosius,  bishop  of  Cordova,  Vitus  and  Vincent,  priests  of 
the  city  of  Rome.”  Some  ultra-Gallican  critics  have  held 
that  Hosius  presided  indeed  over  the  Nicene  Council,  but 
that  such  office  was  assigned  him  as  a compliment  to  his 
neroic  labors  for  religion,  not  because  of  his  position  as 
Papal  legate.  Firstly,  we  may  answer  that  this  is  a mere 
conjecture,  and  it  is  founded  on  no  pre-eminent  excellence 
really  possessed  by  Hosius  Over  his  brother  bishops. 
There  was  Paphnutius,  who  had  undergone  fearful  tortures 
during  the  reign  of  Maximian ; so  also  had  Potamon 
P;:ul,  bishop  of  the  Eupliratesian  Neo-Caesarea,  had 
suffered  all  but  death  under  Licinius.  Then  there  were 
present  many  prelates  who  were  famous  for  their  miracles 
and  for  the  gift  of  prophesy,  such  as  James  of  Nisibis, 
Spiridion  of  Cyprus,  Nicholas  of  Lyeia.  As  for  influence 
with  Constantine,  no  one  equalled  Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 
As  far  as  dignity  of  position  was  concerned,  tlieie  were 
Eustathius  of  Antioch,  and  Alexander  of  Alexandria.  And 
yet  we  see  elevated  above  all  these  prelates  the  bishop  of 
an  insignificant  diocese  in  distant  Spain.  He  is  placed 
above  two  legates  of  the  Roman  See,  above  the  Alexandrian 
and  Antiochene  patriarchs,  above  Caecilian,  the  primate  of 
all  Africa.  When  he  sits  in  the  Council  of  Elvira,  in  his 
own  Spain,  although  there  are  present  but  nineteen  bish- 
ops, he  holds  the  second  place  ; and  when  he  sits  in  the 
Council  of  Arles,  he  is  not  mentioned  among  the  chief 
prelates  (1).  Again,  if  wre  do  not  admit  that  Hosius 
presided  by  virtue  of  his  legatine  authority,  we  must  accuse 

(1)  St.  Augustine,  against  Parmenian , b.  2,  c.  5. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


204 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  fathers  of  Nice  of  having  violated  those  privileges  of 
the  patriarchates,  which  they  confirmed  in  this  very  synod ; 
the  bishop  of  Alexandria  would  no  longer  have  held  the 
second  place,  decreed  to  him  according  to  ancient  customs. 
But  at  this  time  there  was  a canon  which  recognized  in  the 
Roman  See  the  right  of  presiding  in  all  synods  wherein 
was  discussed  anything  pertaining  to  the  Universal  Church. 
In  an  epistle  to  the  Eusebian  prelates  of  the  East,  Pope 
Julius  I.  (337-352)  says  that  they  have  violated  the  canons 
in  not  inviting  him  to  their  synod  : “ Since  the  ecclesias- 
tical canon  forbids  any  decrees  to  be  sanctioned  without 
the  judgment  of  the  Roman  bishop.”  That  canon  was  in 
the  mind  of  the  Council  held  at  Rome  by  Pope  Damasus, 
when  it  reproved  the  prelates  of  Rimini  for  having  edited  a 
profession  of  faith  which  Rome  had  not  passed  upon.  It 
also  governed  the  fathers  of  the  fifth  General  Council  (553), 
when  after  having  thrice  invited  Pope  Yigilius  to  preside 
at  their  deliberations,  they  wrote  to  him,  through  Eutychiua 
of  Constantinople,  “ And  we  therefore  beseech  you,  that 
your  Blessedness  presiding  over  us,  with  priestly  tranquilli- 
ty and  gentleness,  the  holy  Gospels  being  brought  forward, 
by  a common  discussion  these  same  Chapters  may  be  treat- 
ed, and  an  end  put  to  the  question.”  But  it  is  incredible 
that  the  presidency  of  the  bishop  of  Cordova  should  have 
been  accepted  by  all  the  bishops  at  Nice,  if  his  legating 
position  had  not  compelled  them  to  accept  it.  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  rights  of  the  patriarchs,  there  were  Tlieognis,  bish 
op  of  Nice  itself,  and  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  metropolitan  of 
all  Bythinia,  both  intensely  Arian,  and  not  at  all  likely,  if 
they  could  avoid  it,  to  acquiesce  in  the  choice  of  a president 
whom  they  knew  to  be  hostile  to  their  cause.  We  must 
conclude  therefore  that  they  regarded  Hosius  as  president 
of  the  Council  by  virtue  of  his  position  as  Papal  legate.  As 
for  Yitus  and  Vincent,  it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  reason 
for  their  being  recognized  as  colleagues  of  Hosius,  unless 
that  furnished  by  their  legatine  quality,  for,  as  simple  priests, 
they  had  no  right  even  to  a Seat  in  the  Council. 

The  Nicene  Council  issued  twenty  canons.  Among  the 
Maronites  of  the  Lebanon,  the  Armenians,  Copts,  Abys- 


Digitized  by  Google 


ABIANIStf,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICK 


905 


si  mans,  and  other  Orientals,  both  United  and  Schismatic 
there  have  been  regarded  as  Nicene  sixty-four  other  canons  *, 
but  that  they  are  supposititious,  and  no  older  than  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  is  proved  by  vheir  fre- 
quent presentation  of  the  term  “patriarch,”  as  applied  to 
the  bishops  of  the  greater  sees — that  name  having  been  in- 
troduced into  the  hierarchical  nomenclature  at  that  period. 
That  the  Nicene  canons  numbered  only  twenty,  is  shown  by 
all  the  ancient  Collections,  among  which  may  be  specially 
quoted  that  of  Dionysius  Exiguus  (6th  Cent.)  and  the  one 
drawn  up  by  Theilo  and  Tharistus,  and  sent  by  Atticus  of 
Constantinople  in  the  year  419  to  the  sixth  Council  of  Car- 
thage. The  same  is  proved  by  the  fact  that,  in  thj  cause  of 
the  appeal  of  Apiarius  to  Pope  Zosimus  (417),  tae  Nicene 
canons  furnished  by  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  w^re  of  that 
number.  Again,  Theodoret,  book  1,  c.  8,  expressly  says : 
“ The  bishops  again  assembling  in  Council,  issued  twenty 
laws  or  canons  on  Church  administration.”  It  is  true  that 
Rufinus,  in  his  History , c.  6,  b.  1,  cites  twenty-two  canons, 
but  that  comes  from  his  dividing  the  sixth  and  eighth  into 
two  parts  each. 

Only  one  of  the  Nicene  canons  calls  for  any  special  con- 
sideration in  a work  such  as  the  present.  The  sixth  canon 
reads  as  follows:  “Let  the  ancient  custom  be  preserved 

throughout  Egypt,  Libya,  and  the  Pentapolis ; that  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria  have  power  over  all  these ; because 
such  is  the  custom  with  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Similarly  in 
Antioch,  and  the  other  provinces,  let  their  privileges  be  pre- 
served by  the  churches.  Generally,  however,  this  is  clear,. that 
if  anyone  be  made  a bishop  without  the  consent  of  his  met- 
ropolitan, the  great  Synod  defines  that  such  ought  not  to  be  a 
bishop.  If,  then,  two  or  three,  on  account  of  their  own  conten- 
tions, contradict  the  common  decree  of  all,  reasonable  and  ap- 
proved according  to  ecclesiastical  rule, let  the  sentence  of  the 
majority  ( plitrimcrum ) obtain.”  In  interpreting  this  canon, 
all  recognize  a certain  comparison  between  the  churches  ol 
Rome  and  Alexandria.  Some  hold  that  only  the  metro- 
politan’s privileges  as  to  episcopal  appointments  are  estab- 
lished ; others  that  the  patriarchal  rights  are  arranged 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


206 


STUDIES  1^  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Protestants  in  general  contend  that  by  this  canon  the  theory 
of  Roman  supremacy  is  subverted,  for,  they  say,  by  it  the 
Roman  jurisdiction  is  restricted  to  the  “ suburban  regions, ,r 
which  do  not  extend  beyond  the  hundred tli  mile-stone  from 
the  Eternal  City.  And  Rufinus  of  Aquileia  certainly  inter- 
preted the  canon  as  reading,  “ That  in  the  Alexandrian  dio- 
cese, and  in  the  City,  the  ancient  custom  be  preserved,  that 
the  former  should  have  the  care  of  Egypt,  and  the  latter  of 
the  suburban  churches.”  Photius,  the  prime  author  of  the 
Greek  schism,  made  considerable  use  of  this  canon  in  carry- 
ing out  his  design.  But  nothing  is  more  sure  than  that, 
even  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  Roman  Pontiff  was  re- 
garded by  the  entire  Church  as  endowed  with  jurisdiction 
over  the  patriarchs.  What  then  did  the  fathers  of  Nice 
mean  to  establish  when  they  edited  this  sixth  canon  ? In 
the  first  place,  there  is  nothing  in  the  canon  to  justify  the 
Protestant  interpretation  of  the  reading  of  Rufinus.  'Why 
should  that  author  be  supposed,  in  the  use  of  the  phrase 
“suburban  regions,”  to  allude  to  that  limited  territory  lying 
within  the  hundredth  mile-stone  from  Rome  ? Why  could 
he  not  have  meant  to  signify  the  Western  patriarchate  ? The 
canon  assigns  to  the  Alexandrian  jurisdiction  all  the  immense 
region  of  Egypt,  Libya,  and  the  Pentapolis ; is  it  likely  that 
Rufinus  would  have  interpreted  the  same  canon  as  giving  to 
the  great  patriarch  of  the  West  only  that  narrow  of 

territory  commonly  known  as  the  suburban  region?  The 
Protestant  reading  of  Rufinus  is  strained.  The  natural 
reading  of  the  canon,  and  therefore  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  the  phrase  of  Rufinus,  is  that  as  the  Roman  Pontiff 
lias  immediate  jurisdiction  over  the  countries  of  the  West, 
so  the  Eastern  patriarchs  should  wield  that  authority  over 
their  respective  regions  which  time  and  law  had  given  them. 
And  we  should  consider  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise 
to  this  sixth  canon.  Meletius,  the  bishop  of  Lycopolis.  had 
usurped  the  patriarchal  rights  of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
and  that  bishop,  Alexander,  had  complained  thereof  to  the 
'Council.  The  fathers  therefore  framed  a canon  in  which, 
although  incidentally  legislating  upon  the  appointing  au- 
thority of  the  patriarchs,  they  protected  in  general  all  the 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


\nd  the  council  of  nice. 


207 


./  the  great  sees  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  as- 
^norti'ag  that  as  the  entire  West  was  subject  to  the  patri- 
archal sway  of  Rome,  so  the  East  she mLl  be  divided  between 
the  patriarchates  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  In  fine,  we 
.may  sav  with  Henry  de  Yalois  (1),  that  the  citation  from  Rufi- 
aus  is  not  a version,  but  a paraphrase,  of  the  canon,  and  the  I 
adversaries  of  Rome  have  badly  interpreted  it.  An  au-  1 
thoritative  interpretation  of  this  sixth  canon  can  be  found 
in  the  16th  Action  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Paschasi- 
nus,  the  Papal  legate,  having  been  asked  to  produce  the 
canon  of  Nice  whicli  he  had  alleged  against  that  Council’s 
28th  canon,  he  thus  recited  it  from  his  codex  : “ The  Sixth 
canon  of  the  318  Fathers  : That  the  Roman  Church  has 
•always  had  the  Primacy  ; let  Egypt  however  hold,  that  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria  has  power  over  all,  because  such  is 
'ihe  custom  with  the  Roman  bishop.  Similarly  also,  for 
him  who  is  constituted  in  Antioch,  and  in  other  provinces, 
4.et  the  churches  of  the  greater  cities  have  the  primacy.” 
Against  this  reading  not  one  protested,  but  all  answered, 
u We  declare  that  the  Primacy,  and  chief  honor,  according  to 
the  Canons,  be  preserved  to  the  Archbishop  of  ancient 
Rome.'’  That  in  this  canon  the  primacy  of  Rome  was  as- 
serted, Gelasius  I.  (402)  certainly  believed,  since  in  his  epis- 
lle  to  the  Orientals  concerning  Acacius,  he  asked,  “ With 
what  reason  or  sequence  can  deference  be  paid  to  the  other 
sees,  if  the  ancient  reverence  is  not  paid  to  the  first  see  of 
Blessed  Peter,  through  which  the  dignity  of  all  priests  is 
always  strengthened  and  confirmed,  and  to  which  by  the 
singular  and  invincible  judgment  of  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  fathers,  the  most  ancient  honor  was  adjudged ?’r 
So  also  opined  Boniface  I.  (418-422),  in  his  epistle  to  the 
bishops  of  Thessaly.  “ The  institution  of  the  Universal 
rising  Church  assumed  its  beginning  in  the  honor  of  Blessed 
Peter,  in  whom  its  government  resides.  For  from  him  as  j 
source,  in  the  increasing  regard  Ur  religion,  ecclesiastical  l 
discipline  spread  through  all  the  churches.  The  precepts 
of  the  Nicene  Synod  testify  to  nothing  else,  since  it  dared 
not  to  establish  anything  in  regard  to  him  above  whose 

(U  Oltott  t <**  «•»<**  4 Xt  W \~t  rsion  uf  t'ir  ITh-fn*- ./  1. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


208 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


merit  it  saw  nothing  could  be  conferred ; it  knew  in  fine  that 
to  him  everything  had  een  conceded  by  the  words  of  the^ 
Lord.”  In  treating  of  this  canon,  and  its  paraphrase  by 
Rufinus,  the  learned  Oratorian,  John  Morin  (1),  holds  that 
this  writer  understood  the  entire  West  by  the  term  “suburban 
churches.”  He  well  observes  that  from  the  time  of  Augustus 
to  that  of  Constantine,  the  whole  world  was  regarded  as 
“suburban”  to  Rome,  that  is,  subject  to  its  rule,  and  owing 
it  all  reverence  and  submission.  No  other  city  at  that  time 
disputed  the  palm  of  empire  with  Rome.  But  when  Con- 
stantine transferred  the  imperial  residence  to  Byzantium,  the 
new  capital  was  soon  designated  as  the  “ governing  city,” 
the  “ New  Rome.”  This  method  of  distinguishing  the  two 
rivals  was  especially  prevalent  in  the  time  of  Arcadius  and 
Honorius,  when  Rufinus  lived.  The  empire  was  practically 
divided  into  two  parts,  the  Eastern  and  Western  ; at  the 
head  of  the  one  was  Rome,  of  the  other  Constantinople. 
At  this  time,  therefore,  the  entire  world  was  no  longer 
“ suburban”  to  the  Eternal  City  ; only  the  West  continued 
to  be  so  designated.  In  the  mind  of  Rufinus  the  “ sub- 
urban churches”  were  all  the  Western  churches  which  go 
to  make  up  the  Roman  patriarchate,  and  hence  his  exposi- 
tion of  the  sixth  Nicene  canon  would  be.  “ Let  the  bishop 
of  Alexandria  exercise  throughout  his  subject  dioceses  all 
patriarchal  rights,  according  to  ancient  customs,  just  as 
the  bishop  of  Rome  patriarchally  governs  the  churches  of 
the  West.”  It  may  also  be  observed  that  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Rufinus,  granting  it  to  be  adverse  to  the  claims  of 
Rome,  is  of  little  value  to  our  opponents,  since  its  sincerity 
is  liable  to  more  than  suspicion.  Ho  nourished  profound 
hatred  for  the  Roman  Church,  having  been  excommunicat- 
edby  Pope  Anastasius.  Both  Anastasius  (2)  andSt.  Jerome 
(3)  use  very  severe  terms  in  his  regard.  His  authority 
is  unreliable  too  on  account  of  his  ignorance.  He  makes 
out  St.  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  to  be  bishop  of  the 
Apostles  ; he  confounds  Eusebius  of  Pamphili,  an  Arian 
bishop,  with  Pamphilus  the  martyr ; he  knows  no  differ- 

(1)  Ecclesiastical  Exercises , No.  30. 

(?)  Epist . to  John  of  Jerusalem.  (3)  2nd  Apol  against  Rufinus. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 


209 


ence  between  Sixtus,  a Pagan  philosopher,  and  St.  Sixtus, 
Pope  and  martyr ; he  thinks  a chorepiscopus  is  a bishop 
without  a diocese.  St.  Jerome  says  of  Rufinus,  “ he  teaches 
what  he  knows  not, he  writes  of  what  he  is  ignorant.”  “ He 
talks  so  stinkingly  (sic)  and  confusedly,  that  Jerome  is  more 
fatigued  in  reproving  than  Rufinus  was  in  writing.  ” “ Thou 
hast  so  much  knowledge  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  languages 
that  the  Greeks  take  thee  for  a Latin,  and  the  Latins  for  a 
Greek.”  According  to  St.  Jerome,  Rufinus  was  in  his 
writings  “ a solecist  and  barbarous,”  “ a liar,  impudent,  and 
sly.”  Granted  then  that  the  term  “ suburban  ’ used  by 
Rufinus  should  be  understood  as  it  is  by  the  adversaries  of 
Rome,  little  can  be  gained  by  them  by  the  allegation  of 
such  an  authority  (1).  No  more  need  be  said  of  Rufinus  ; 
so  much  would  not  have  been  written,  were  it  not  that  in 
his  reading  of  the  sixth  Nicene  canon  is  found  the  only  ap- 
parent justification  of  the  idea  that  the  Nicene  Council  gave 
equal  authority  *.c>  the  three  patriarchs  of  Rome,  Alexandria, 
and  Antioch. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 

This  Council  was  held  by  decree  of  Pope  Julius  I.  in  the 
year  347.  It  has  not  been*  generally  mentioned,  under  its 
own  name,  as  one  of  the  Oecumenical  Councils,  because  it 
was  regarded  as  a kind  of  appendix  to  that  of  Nice.  Again, 
to  use  the  words  of  the  learned  Ballerini  brothers  (2),  in 
enumerating  those  Councils,  the  decrees  ^f  which  were  to 
be  received  as  so  many  gospels,  the  olden  writers  only 
thought  of  such  synods  as  were  held  for  the  purpose  of 
condemning  some  particular  heresy,  and  the  Synod  of  Sar- 
dica  dealt  only  with  the  relics  of  Arianism,  upon  which  the 
main  attack  had  been  made  by  the  fathers  of  Nice.  The 

(1)  In  his  20th  Dissertation,  when  treating  of  the  4th  century,  Natalis  Alexander  gives 
several  instances  of  omission,  addition,  and  interpolation  of  the  Nicene  canons,  on  the 
part  of  Rufinus. 

(2t  The  Ancient  Collections  and  Collectors  of  Canons  down  to  Oration,  p.  I.,  c.  7. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


210 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


reason  for  its  convocation  was  furnished  by  the  calumnies 
of  the  Eusebian  faction  against  St.  Athanasius,  Marcellua 
of  Ancyra,  and  Asclepa  of  Gaza,  and  by  the  dissatisfaction 
evinced  among  those  malcontents  at  the  restoration  of  these 
prelates  to  communion  by  Pope  Julius.  This  Pontiff  pre- 
sided over  the  Council  by  means  of  his  legates,  Hosius  of 
Cordova,  and  the  priests  Archidamus  and  Philoxenus.  We 
do  not  know  to  a certainty  the  number  of  bishops  who  at* 
tended  the  sessions,  for  Theodoret  places  the  number  at 
two  hundred  and  fifty,  while  Socrates  and  Sozomenus  say 
there  were  three  hundred  Western  prelates,  and  seventy-six 
Orientals.  St.  Athanasius,  in  his  Apolnyy,  says,  that  be- 
sides the  sixty  bishops  who,  before  the  Synod,  attested  in 
writing  their  belief  in  his  innocence,  there  did  the  same  at 
Sardica,  ninety-two  from  the  Italian  provinces,  thirty-four 
from  Gaul,  thirty-six  from  Africa,  ninety-two  from  Egypt* 
fifteen  from  Palestine,  and  twelve  from  Cyprus  ; in  all,  that  is, 
two  hundred  and  eighty-four.  But  in  the  beginning  of  this 
same  Ap  lotjtj , the  saint  tells  us  that  there  were  at  Sardica, 
bishops  from  Isauria,  Pamphylia,  Lycia,  Galatia,  Dacia, 
Thrace,  Dardania,  Macedonia,  Epirus,  Ac.,  which  would  in- 
dicate that  the  number  284  did  not  comprehend  all  the 
fathers  of  the  Synod. 

Scarcely  had  the  bishops  assembled  for  the  Council,  when 
the  Eusebian  faction,  to  the  number  of  eighty,  retired  ta 
Philippopolis,  where  they  held  an  independent  Synod,  re- 
taining the  name  of  “Council  of  Sardica.”  They  took  this 
action  because  the  fathers  would  not  commence  the  proceed- 
ings by  ejecting  Athanasius  and  his  companions  from  their 
body.  After  their  departure,  the  Council  solemnly  absolved 
Athanasius,  Marcellus,  Asclepa,  and  others  who  had  been 
wickedly  condemned  by  the  Eusebiaus  ; and  deprived  of  their 
bishoprics  Yalens.  Ursacius,  Narcissus,  Stephen  of  Antioch, 
Acacius  of  Caesarea,  Meno pliant  of  Ephesus,  and  George 
ofLaodicea.  In  their  Synodical  Epistle,  notifying  Pope 
Julius  of  their  action,  the  fathers  say  that  “ it  will  be  right 
and  proper  that  the  priests  of  the  Lord,  from  all  the  prov- 
inces, refer  all  to  the  head,  that  is,  to  the  See  of  the  Apostle 
Peter.” 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 


211 


, With  regard  to  the  convocation  of  this  Council,  the  same 
reasoning  will  apply  that  we  have  used  in  treating  of  the 
calling  of  the  Nicene  Sv  nod.  That  Hosius,  Archidamus  and 
Philoxenus  presided,  appears  from  the  2nd  Apology  of 
Athanasius,  in  which  he  says,  “ Of  those  who  subscribed  in 
the  Synod  these  are  the  names  : Hosius  from  Spain  ; Julius 
of  Rome,  through  Archidamus  and  Philoxenus,  his  priests  ; 
Protogenes  of  Sardica,  &c.”  The  factious  prelates  of  Phil- 
ippopolis  prove  the  same  in  their  Synodical  Letter,  “ And 
since  those  who  were  with  Hosips  wished  to  violate  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  faith,  <fcc.”  The  Council  of  Chalce- 
don,  in  its  allocution  to  the  emperor  Mareian,  says  that 
“ Hosius  presided  over  those  who,  at  Sardica,  pronounced 
sentence  against  the  remnants  of  Anus.” 

Against  the  oecumenicity  of  this  Council,  the  captious 
Archbishop  De  Marca,  in  his  celebrated  work  on  the  Con- 
cord of  the  Priesthood,  and  the  Empire , h.  7,  e 3,  bolds  that 
while  it  was  general  in  the  beginning,  yet  the  course  and 
exit  of  the  synod  were  such  as  to  destroy  all  claim  to 
oecumenicity.  The  Council  was  intended,  he  says,  to  be  com- 
posed of  the  prelates  of  all  the  provinces,  both  Eastern  and 
Western ; but  the  Philippopolitan  secession  reduced  the 
synodical  body  to  the  dimensions  of  a Western,  not  a Gen- 
eral. Council.  To  this  we  answer,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
untrue  that  all  the  Orientals  seceded,  for  the  bishops  of 
Palestine,  Arabia,  Egypt,  and  the  neighborhood  of  Constan- 
tinople, remained  and  signed  the  decrees.  This  is  proved 
by  the  heading  of  the  Synodical  Epistle  sent  by  the  fathers- 
to  the  church  of  Alexandria.  i%  The  holy  Synod,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  congregated  at  Sardica,  from  Rome,  Spain, 
Gaul,  Italy,  Africa,  Sardinia,  Pannonia,  My  si  a,  Dacia,  Nori- 
cum,  Tuscany,  Dardania,  the  second  Dacia,  Macedonia, 
Thessaly,  Achaia,  Epirus,  Thrace,  Rhodes,  Palestine,  Ara- 
bia, Crete,  Egypt,  to  the  Priests  and  Deacons  and  the  uni- 
versal Church  of  God  in  the  Alexandrian  district,  beloved 
brethren,  health  in  the  Lord.”  And  the  rebellious  prelates 
themselves  admitted  that  many  Eastern  bishops  remained 
at  Sardica.  In  their  Synodical  Epistle,  they  say,  ‘‘An  im- 
mense multitude  of  bishops,  arriving  Constantinople- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


212 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  Alexandria,  drew  together  in  Sardica,  and  having 
united  them  with  themselves,  Hosius  and  Protogenes  held  a 
Council.'  But  granted  that  all  the  Orientals  were  Euse- 
bians,  and  that  all  seceded  from  the  Council,  no  argument 
can  be  deduced  against  the  cecumenicity  of  the  Council. 
It  had  legitimately  assembled,  in  obedience  to  the  call  of  the 
Homan  Pontiff,  and  the  secessionists  had  no  legitimate 
motive  for  their  defection.  They  were  guilty  of  open 
schism,  and  when  the  decayed  branches  are  lopped  off,  the 
vitality  of  the  tree  is  not  affected.  If  the  Eusebian  revolt 
impaired  the  authority  of  the  Sardican  Council,  the  1st 
Council  of  Constantinople  was  not  general,  for  there  the 
Macedonians,  against  whom  that  body  was  convoked,  were 
wanting;  nor  was  the  Council  of  Ephesus  oecumenical, 
for  there  were  absent  John  of  Antioch  and  his  suffragans; 
nor  again  were  the  Councils  of  Trent  and  of  the  Vatican 
General,  for  in  each  of  these  were  unrepresented  those  sec- 
tions of  the  Greek  and  other  Oriental  churches  which  yet 
cling  to  their  schism. 

The  canons  of  Sardica  are  in  number  twenty  or  twenty- 
one.  Of  these,  the  third,  fourth,  and  seventh,  claim  our 
attention.  To  these  canons  is  assigned  by  some  writers 
the  origin  of  appeal  to  Home.  Among  these  authors  the 
principal  are  De  Marca,  Quesnel,  Dupin,  and  Febronius 
(Hontheim).  They  have  been  fully  confuted  by  such  pol- 
emics as  Alexander,  the  Ballerinis,  and  most  triumphantly 
by  Zaccaria,  in  his  refutation  of  Hontheim  entitled  “ Anti - 
FcbbromoS'  So  far  as  our  limits  permit,  we  propose  to  show 
that  the  Council  of  Sardica  did  not  initiate  the  right  of  ap- 
peal to  Home,  but  that  long  before  the  time  of  that  Synod 
that  right  had  been  recognized  by  the  Christian  world.  It 
is  not  our  province  to  prove  that  this  right  of  receiving  ap- 
peals pertains  of  necessity  to  the  Papacy ; that  must  be 
left  to  the  dogmatic  theologian.  Our  task  is  purely  histori- 
cal, and  in  strictly  confining  ourselves  within  our  own  do- 
main, we  shall  see  that  our  ancestors  held  what  Gallicans 
used  to  regard  as  ultramontane  views  on  this  subject,  and 
what  all  Protestants  deny.  The  first  instance  of  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Roman  See  which  we  shall  adduce  is  that  of 


Digitized  by  ejOOQle 


THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  8ARDICA. 


213 


Marcion,  in  the  year  142.  Marcion  was  a son  of  the  bishop 
of  Sinope,  and  after  having  followed  the  monastic  life  for 
some  years,  was  raised  by  him  to  the  priesthood.  Having 
seduced  a young  woman  from  the  path  of  virtue,  he  was  ex- 
communicated by  his  father,  and  as  the  discipline  of  the 
Church  in  the  matter  of  fornication,  &c.,  was  in  those  days 
very  severe,  he  in  vain  tried  again  and  again  to  be  restored 
to  communion.  He  then  resolved  to  appeal  to  Borne. 
Arriving  in  the  Eternal  City,  he  found  the  Holy  See  vacant 
by  the  death  of  Pope  Hyginus.  Not  waiting  for  the  elec- 
tion of  a new  Pontiff,  Marcion  laid  his  case  before  the 
Boman  clergy,  and'  begged  to  be  received  into  their  com- 
munion (1).  Now  the  Boman  clergy  could  not  have  admit- 
ted him  to  communion  without  previously  quashing  the  sen- 
tence of  his  bishop  ; therefore,  Marcion’s  action  must  be 
regarded  as  an  appeal  from  an  inferior  s condemnation  to 
the  judgment  of  a superior.  He  must  have  argued,  as  did  St. 
Cyprian  in  a similar  emergency,  that  the  See  of  Borne 
“ was  the  principal  church,  whence  arises  ecclesiastical 
unity  (2;.  The  request  of  Marcion  was  rejected,  both  be- 
cause of  the  canons  which  forbade  the  admission  of  any 
cleric  not  bearing  commendatory  letters  from  his  own  bish- 
op, and  because  of  the  vacancy  of  the  Koman  See,  the  Su- 
preme Pontiff  alone  having  the  power  to  grant  the  mitigation 
of  discipline  which  Marcion  besought. 

Another  example  of  an  appeal  to  Borne,  “ whence  the  au- 
thority of  this  Church  is  more  and  more  confirmed,”  is  found 
by  Coustant  (3)  in  the  affair  of  Privatus  in  the  year  250. 
This  heretic  had  been  condemned  in  a synod  of  ninety  bish- 
ops, and  the  sentence  had  been  confirmed  by  Donatus  of 
Carthage  and  by  Pope  Fabian.  Upon  the  death  of  the  Pon- 
tiff, the  cunning  Privatus  endeavored  to  prevail  upon  the 
Boman  clergy  to  accord  him  communion,  but  with  the  same 
result  as  Marcion  had  achieved. 

The  African  churches  furnish  us  with  another  instance  of 
appeal  to  the  Holy  See  in  the  year  252.  The  election  of 
St.  Cyprian  had  been  opposed  by  Felicissimus  and  four 

(1)  flT.  Bpiphanius,  />.  42.  (2)  E)  <u  . 4b,  to  Cornelius. 

13)  Eviat.  Horn.  Font .,  ton  rot.  '£&, 


% 

Digitized  by  Google 


214 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


other  priests,  and  they  had  chosen  a certain  Fortunatus. 
Excommunicated  by  St.  Cyprian,  all  five  fled  to  Rome,  and 
appealed  to  Pope  Cornelius.  The  bishop  of  Carthage  com- 
plained strongly  because  of  this  proceeding  but  not  because 
he  denied  the  right  of  a bishop  to  appeal  to  Rome  ; rather 
because  he  regarded  Fortunatus  as  possessed  of  no  episcopal 
privileges,  he  having  been  illicitly,  though  validly,  consecrat- 
ed. A short  time  previously,  the  African  church  had  prohib- 
ited the  recourse  of  priests  to  Rome,  and  of  this  decree  we 
shall  treat  in  a special  chapter.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose 
that  Fortunatus,  regarding  himself  as  possessed  of  epis- 
copal rights,  appealed  to  Pope  Cornelius,  and  that  St. 
Cyprian,  looking  upon  him  as  no  bishop,  only  denied  his 
right  according  to  the  African  canons  which  applied  only 
to  priests.  An  event  which  happened  two  years  later  than 
the  above  will  throw  some  light  upon  the  matter.  Two 
Spanish  prelates,  Basilides  and  Martial,  had  been  deposed 
for  crime,  and  in  their  places  were  installed  Sabinus  and 
Felix.  The  former  appealed  to  Pope  Stephen,  and  that 
Pontiff  ordered  their  restoration  to  their  sees.  Sabinus  and 
Felix  then  crossed  into  Africa,  and  begged  the  sympathy 
of  St.  Cyprian.  This  bishop  in  a synod  decided  that  the 
Pope  had  been  deceived  by  Basilides,  but  he  did  not  deny 
his  right  to  receive  the  appeal  of  the  deposed  prelate. 

The  history  of  Paul  of  Samosata  presents  a fact,  which, 
though  it  may  not  be  necessarily  regarded  as  an  appeal,  yet 
shows  that  the  authority  of  synods  was  not,  at  that  time, 
thought  to  be  superior  to  Papal  revision.  Protected  by  Zeno- 
bia,  the  powerful  queen  of  Palmyra,  he  refused  to  give  place 
to  Domnus,  in  whose  favor  he  had  been  deposed.  After  the 
victory  of  the  emperor  Aurelian  over  Zenobia,  the  Christian 
bishops  complained  to  that  sovereign  against  Paul,  and  he 
decided  that  the  episcopal  residence  and  appurtenances 
should  be  handed  over  to  that  one  of  the  claimants  “to  whom 
the  Roman  bishop  and  the  Italian  prelates  of  the  Christian 
religion  should  write”  (1).  Aurelian  being  a Pagan,  and  there- 
fore but  little  conversant  with  Church  matters,  could  scarcely 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  of  referring  the  question  to  sa 

(1)  ErsKBirs,  VII, c.  30. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  GENIAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 


215 


•distant  a see  as  that  of  Rome,  and  one  too  of  different  nation- 
ality and  lauguage,  unless  the  idea  had  been  suggested 
to  him  either  by  the  Oriental  bishops  or  by  Paul  himself. 
The  former  may  have  done  so  in  all  sincerity,  the  latter  in 
the  hope  of  gaining  time.  In  either  case,  the  conclusion  is 
favorable  to  our  position. 

Very  interesting,  and  at  the  same  time  apodictically  con- 
clusive for  our  cause,  is  the  episode  of  the  Donatist  treatment 
of  the  cousecration  of  Ceecilian  of  Carthage.  The  Donatists 
contended  that  Cjecilian  could  not  have  acquired  any  episco- 
pal rights,  since  his  consecration  was  at  the  hands  of  Felix 
of  Aptonga,  whom  they  designated  a “traitor.”  With  Secun- 
dus,  primate  of  Numidia,  and  seventy  other  bishops  of  the 
same  ilk,  they  formed  a synod,  and  in  place  of  Cnecilian  ap- 
pointed Majoriuus.  Speaking  of  the  pretended  deposition  of 
CaBcilian,  St.  Augustine  says,  “he  might  well  despise  so 
strong  a conspiracy  of  many  bishops,  hostile  to  himself, 
when  he  found  himself  in  communion  with  the  Roman  Church, 
in  which  was  always  in  vigor  the  principality  of  the  Apostolic 

chair and  before  which  he  was  ready  to  plead  his 

cause’ll). 

Here  was  a question  of  a bishop  condemned  by  a synod 
convoked  from  many  provinces,  and  yet  Augustine  deemed 
that  he  might  breathe  securely  for  the  simple  reason  that 
Rome  was  with  him.  The  holy  bishop  of  Hippo  certainly 
recognized,  therefore,  the  right  of  Rome  to  hear  and  to 
pronounce  in  the  cause  of  Caecilian.  And  the  appeal  took 
place.  The  Donatists,  seeing  that  the  communion  of  Cfecilian 
with  Rome  fortified  the  position  which  he  held  among 
Catholics,  asked  the  emperor  Constantine  to  call  a Council 
to  settle  the  question,  and  requested  that  the  Synod  should 
be  composed  of  French  bishops.  But  Constantine,  knowing 
that  the  bishops  of  Gaul  had  no  jurisdiction  in  Africa,  wrote 
to  Pope  Melchiades,  asking  him  to  examine  the  matter,  in 
union  with  three  Gallic  prelates.  Melchiades  judged  the 
case,  but  in  his  examination,  he  joined  with  himself  fifteen 
other  bishops,  all  Italians.  This  episode  certainly  furnishes 

(1)  Epist.  48,  alicu  1*2. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


216 


STUDIES  IN  G HUNCH  HISTORY. 


an  instance  of  an  appeal  to  Borne,  forced,  if  you  please,  but 
yet  an  appeal 

Finally,  the  history  of  St.  Athanasius  shows  us  that  the 
canons  of  Sardica  did  not  introduce  the  right  of  appeal  to 
the  Holy  See.  Liberatus  the  Deacon  (1),  speaking  of  John 
Talaja,  says  that  “ taking  from  him  (Calendion  of  Antioch) 
synodical  letters  of  intercession,  be  appealed  to  the  Boman 
Pontiff,  Simplicius,  just  as  did  the  Blessed  Athanasius . ” 
Alexandre  denies  that  this  action  of  Athanasius  was  an  ap- 
peal (2) ; he  styles  it  a refugium.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  Pope 
Julius  condemned  the  Eusebians  and  absolved  Athanasius 
that  is,  he  examined  and  reversed  the  judgment  of  the 
former.  Socrates  and  Sozomenus  declare  that  Pope  Julius 
restored  Athanasius  and  several  other  prelates  to  the  sees 
of  which  they  had  been  unjustly  deprived  (3) ; Celestine  tells 
the  people  of  Constantinople  the  same  (4),  and  so  does 
Gelasius,  in  a letter  to  the  bishops  of  Dardania  (5).  St 
Athanasius  himself,  in  his  2nd  Apology , says  : “ Not  once,  but 
frequently,  was  judgment  pronounced  in  our  favor  ; first,  in 
our  own  province,  when  to  that  end  about  a hundred  bishops 
assembled  ; secondly,  at  Borne,  when  we  and  the  other  ad- 
versaries of  Eusebius  stood  on  trial  against  his  calumniat- 
ing letters  ; finally,  for  the  third  time,  in  the  great  Council 
of  Sardica.” 

We  now  pass  to  an  examination  of  some  of  the  canons  of 
Sardica,  and  to  a refutation  of  their  interpretation  by  Febro- 
niusi  In  the  collection  of  Dionysius  the  Little,  the 
third  canon  reads  thus : “ If  any  bishop  shall  have  been 

judged  in  any  matter,  and  shall  be  persuaded  that  he  has 
a good  case,  so  that  he  may  desire  a second  Council,  if  it 
pleases  you,  let  us  honor  the  memory  of  St.  Peter  the 
Apostle  ; let  those  who  examined  the  matter  write  to  Julius, 
the  Boman  bishop,  that  if  he  deems  it  right  to  revise  the 
judgment,  it  be  revised,  and  let  him  appoint  the  judges. 
But  if  he  decides  that  the  cause  is  not  of  a nature  to  war- 

(1 ) Brex'iani-  c.  18. 

(2)  For  a refutation  of  Alexandre  In  this  matter,  see  the  Antt-Fcbbronio  of  Zaccarla» 
p.  2,  b.  8,  c.  2,  No.  8. 

(8)  Book  2,  c . 15 ; and  Book  8,  c.  8,  respectively. 

(4)  Epiat.  14,  Bom.  Pont .,  col.  1143.  (5)  Idem,  cp.  13. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 


217 


rant  a revision  of  what  was  done,  what  he  shall  decree  shall 
be  confirmed.  Does  this  please  all  ? The  synod  answers : 
It  pleases.”  This  canon  was  proposed  by  Hosius,  and  as 
he  took  special  care,  in  proposing  the  seventh  canon,  to 
express  the  idea  of  appeal,  whereas  here  there  is  no  such 
mention,  we  must  conclude  that  he  had  no  thought  of  appeal, 
just  then,  in  his  mind.  Again,  in  no  appeal  does  the  judge 
communicate  with  the  superior ; that  is  the  province  of 
the  condemned.  Hence  when  Pope  Zosimus  wished  to  show 
the  Africans  that  the  right  of  appeal  to  Home  had  been 
acknowledged  by  the  synod  of  Sardica,  he  cited,  not  the 
third,  but  the  seventh  canon.  But  there  is  a question  of 
appeal  in  the  fourth  canon,  which  reads  as  follows  : “ The 

bishop  Gaudentius  said  : If  it  pleases,  let  there  be  added  ta 
the  sentence  full  of  goodness  which  you  have  proffered, 
that  if  any  bishop  be  deposed  by  the  judgment  of  the 
neighboring  bishops  (this  is  the  second  judgment)  and  de- 
clares his  wish  that  his  case  be  adjudged  at  Rome,  (the 
third  judgment),  after  the  appeal  of  him  who  appears  de- 
posed, let  no  other  bishop  be  ordained  for  his  see,  until  his 
cause  be  defined  by  the  decision  of  the  Roman  bishop.”  Ta 
the  appellant  then  is  conceded  a third  trial,  although  already 
two  decrees  of  deposition  have  been  pronounced,  the  first 
by  the  prelates  of  his  own  province,  and  the  second  by  his 
neighbors,  assigned  to  him  as  judges,  according  to  the  third 
canon,  by  the  Roman  Pontiff.  But  Hosius  desired  a more 
ample  declaration  to  be  made,  so  after  the  settlement  of 
other  matters  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  canons,  we  find  the 
seventh  speaking  thus  plainly : “ Bishop  Hosius  said  : 

It  pleased,  however,  that  if  any  bishop  was  accused  and 
judged,  and  deposed  by  the  bishops  of  his  own  province, 
and  if  he  who  is  deposed  appeals  and  has  recourse  to  the 
bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  wishes  to  be  heard  by 
him ; if  that  bishop  believes  it  just  to  revise  the  judgment, 
and  the  discussion  of  the  cause,  let  him  deign  to  write  ta 
the  neighboring  bishops  of  the  next  province,  that  they  care- 
fully look  into  everything,  and  deliver  a true  and  just  sen- 
tence. And  if  he  who  asks  for  another  hearing  of  his 
cause,  moves  the  Roman  bishop  to  send  a priest  as  legate. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


"218 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


that  bishop  will  do  as  he  deems  fit.  And  if  he  decides 
upon  sending  legates  who,  with  the  bishops,  will  in  his 
name  give  judgment,  he  will  so  do.  But  if  he  believes 
that  the  bishops  suffice  to  put  an  end  to  the  business,  he 
will  do  what  to  his  prudence  shall  seem  the  most  expedi- 
ent/’ (1) 

Febronius  contends  that  in  these  canons  the  fathers  of 
Sardica  did  not  acknowledge  in  the  Pontiff  the  absolute 
right  to  entertain  all  appeals,  but  only  a right  to  arrange  a 
revision  of  the  cause,  and  that  too  in  the  original  province, 
and  by  a new  intervention  of  the  same  provincial  bishops 
who  had  already  delivered  judgment.  This  theory  is  as 
old  as  the  time  of  Hincmar,  who  pronounces  it  in  a letter 
written  in  the  name  of  king  Charles  the  Bald  to  Pope  John  8, 
and  before  the  advent  of  Hontlieim  it  had  been  confuted  by 
Alexandre  (2)  and  by  the  Ballerinis  (3).  To  any  one  even 
casually  reading  the  seventh  canon,  it  would  seem  that  the 
right  of  appeal  was  very  clearly  stated,  but  Febronius  as- 
serts that  in  the  Greek  text  the  condemned  bishop  is  said 
to  be  “ like  ” or  “as  an  appellant  ” (osper  ekkalesamenos );  and 
what  is  more,  he  holds  that  the  appeal  does  not  refer  to  the 
Pope,  but  to  the  new  judgment  demanded  by  the  accused. 
Since  the  Latin  version  of  the  canons  is  the  original  one,  we 
cannot  see  why  it  should  be  explained  by  the  Greek.  But 
the  Greek  text  does  not  necessarily  give  the  force  of  the  Latin 
quasi , “like”  or  “as,”  displaying  mere  similarity.  Osper 
may  just  as  naturally  signify  “ as  ” in  the  sense  of  “thus,” 
and  the  phrase  would  then  run  “ thus  appealing.”  As  for 
Febronius’  idea  that  the  appeal  refers,  not  to  the  Pontiff, 
but  to  the  neiv  judgment,  the  conjunction  and  binds  the  ap- 
peal with  the  recourse  which  assuredly  is  had  to  the  Pope. 
But  the  context  of  the  canons  is  against  the  theory  of  Feb- 
ronius. And  first,  as  to  the  assertion  that  they  only  accord 
to  the  Pontiff  the  power  to  assign  new  judges  to  act  with  the 
others  in  the  original  province.  The  seventh  canon  speaks 
only  of  the  neighboring  prelates,  who  certainly  formed  no 

(1)  This  canon  is  the  seventh  in  the  Latin  collections,  and  fourth  in  the  Greek.  All 
the  canons  were  first  written  in  Latin,  and  then  drawn  up  in  Greek.  When  the  latter  were 
arranged,  the  above  canon  was  placed  immediately  after  the  third,  since  the  subject 
matter  of  both  w’as  the  same. 

(2)  Fourth  Cent.,  dins.  28,  prop.  2.  (3)  Observations  on  QuesncVs  dim.  5. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL  OF  SARDICA. 


219 


part  of  the  first  tribunal ; the  fourth  canon  also  mentions 
them  alone.  The  third  canon  says  that  the  Pope  should 
“appoint  judges/’  but  the  judges  of  the  first  instance  were 
already  appointed,  and  if  th  ey  were  also  to  sit  in  the  second 
tribunal,  there  would  be  but  little  chance  of  a remedy  being 
given  for  any  injustice  of  the  first.  As  for  the  assertion 
that  the  canons  do  not  allow  the  Pope  to  decide  the  cause 
in  Rome,  but  only  to  arrange  a revision  in  the  province 
where  the  first  trial  took  place,  the  form  adopted  by  Hos- 
ius,  “let  him  deign  to  write,”  shows  that  no  law  is  imposed 
upon  the  Pontiff,  but  only  a suggestion  is  offered  as  to  an 
easy  means  of  expediting  the  affair.  And  if  the  Pope 
could  send  legates  to  give  judgment  in  his  name,  could  he 
not  deliver  it  by  himself  ? Does  not  the  fourth  canon  ex- 
pressly state  that  after  the  second  trial  the  accused  could 
call  upon  the  Pontiff  to  finish  the  question  ? This  decision 
would  necessarily  be  given  not  in  the  province,  but  in 
Rome. 

But  these  canons  of  Sardica  do  not  pretend  to  confer  a 
new  privilege  upon  the  Roman  See  ; they  reaffirm,  and  more 
clearly  explain,  an  ancient  right  exercised  whenever  there 
were  occasion  and  opportunity.  Only  the  fourth  and 
seventh  canons  touch  upon  the  subject  of  appeal,  properly 
bo  called,  and  of  these  the  former  supposes  that  such  appeals- 
are  and  have  been  made,  while  the  seventh  merely  indicates 
a manner  of  entertaining  them,  and  leaves  the  method  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff.  When  the  latter  canon  says 
that  the  Papal  legates  possess  the  authority  of  him  who 
designates  them,  can  it  be  supposed  that  the  framers  thought 
that  they  were  conferring  a power  never  before  enjoyed  ? 
But  we  have  seen  that  those  who  came  after  the  Council  of 
Sardica  did  not  conceive  such  an  idea  of  its  canons,  and 
that  long  before  it,  the  Roman  Pontiffs  had  received  and. 
acted  upon  appeals  from  all  parts  of  the  wurld. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTEK  XX. 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OP  POPE  LIBERIUS. 

In  the  year  of  our  Lord  352,  sixteenth  of  the  reign  of  Con- 
Btantius,  son  of  Constantine,  Liberius  was  elected  to  the 
Papal  See  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  Julius 
I.  The  circumstances  of  the  time  were  difficult  indeed, 
and  none  but  a Pontiff  of  pre-eminent  sanctity  and  prudence 
could  have  guided  the  ship  of  Peter  with  even  moderate 
success.  Arianism,  perhaps  the  most  powerful,  though  not 
the  most  immediately  destructive,  heresy,  which  the  world 
lias  seen,  was  rampant  throughout  the  world,  and  all  the 
influence  of  the  imperial  authority  was  brought  to  bear  to 
add  to  its  already  excessive  audacity*  At  this  time,  Athan 
asms  of  Alexandria  was  the  bulwark  of  Catholic  orthodoxy 
in  the  East,  and  to  defend  him,  therefore,  and  to  be  a good 
Catholic,  were  regarded  as  synonymous.  The  word  Homo - 
ousion  (Consubstantial),  which  the  Council  of  Nice  had  add- 
ed to  the  Creed,  was  looked  upon  as  a test  of  belief  in  the 
Divinity  of  Christ.  The  word  Homoiomion  (Similar)  was  in- 
dicative of  rank  heresy,  although  there  were  some  who  per- 
sisted in  its  use,  and  in  the  rejection  of  the  orthodox  term, 
even  while  they  held  the  Catholic  doctrine.  In  the  year  355, 
having  again,  after  an  interval  of  reconciliation,  become  op- 
posed to  St.  Athanasius,  the  emperor  endeavored  to  attract 
the  Roman  Pontiff  to  his  aid.  He  sent  to  him  the  eunuch 
Eusebius  with  magnificent  gifts,  and  when  these  failed, 
threats  were  employed.  The  sentiments  of  Pope  Liberius 
are  to  be  judged  by  his  own  answer  to  Constantius.  “ How 
can  we  condemn  one  who  has  been  pronounced  free  from  crime 
by  two  Synods,  and  whom  the  Roman  Church  has  dismissed 
in  peace  ? Who  would  approve  of  our  action,  if  we  were 
to  be  hostile  to  him  absent,  whom,  when  present,  we  have 
cherished  and  held  in  communion  ? The  Ecclesiastical 
Canons  run  not  thus,  nor  have  we  ever  received  such  a tra- 
dition from  the  Fathers.  But  if  the  Emperor  wishes  in- 

220 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POFE  LIBERIUS. 


221 


deed  to  exercise  his  care  for  Ecclesiastical  peace,  or  if  he 
wishes  that  which  we  have  written  in  favor  of  Athanasius 
to  be  erased,  let  those  things  also  be  erased  which  have 
been  written  against  him  ; let  there  then  be  held  an  Eccle- 
siastical Synod  at  a distance  from  the  palace,  where  the 
Emperor  is  not  at  hand,  nor  any  count  is  officious,  nor  any 
judge  utters  threats,  and  where  the  fear  of  God  and  the  in- 
stitutes of  the  Apostles  alone  suffice  for  everything,  that  in 
that  place,  before  all  else,  the  Faith  of  the  Church  be  set 
forth,  just  as  it  was  defined  by  the  Fathers  in  the  Nicene 
Council ; then  let  all  be  ejected  who  are  of  the  Arian 
opinion,  and  let  their  heresy  be  anathematized ; then  finally 
let  a judgment  on  Athanasius  be  delivered,  or  upon  any 
other  person  deemed  guilty : and  as  many  as  are  found  guilty* 
so  many  let  there  be  ejected,  and  as  many  as  are  pure,  let 
them  be  absolved  of  guilt.  For  it  cannot  be  allowed  that 
those  should  sit  in  the  Synod  who  are  impious  in  belief, 
nor  is  it  proper  to  question  any  one’s  deeds  before  we  have 
security  as  to  liis  religion.  Every  discord  about  faith  is  to 
be  first  abolished,  and  then  action  may  be  taken  upon  other 
things.”  The  consequence  of  this  worthy  reply  was  the  ex- 
ile of  the  Pontiff  into  Thrace.  On  his  way  to  punishment, 
Liberius  had  an  interview  with  the  sovereign,  and  as  we 
know  from  St.  Athanasius  (1)  he  thus  repelled  the  renewed 
attempts  to  seduce  him:  “ Cease  to  persecute  Christians.  Do 
not  try,  through  me,  to  bring  heretical  impiety  into  the 
Church.  We  Christians  are  prepared  to  sustain  everything, 
ere  we  will  suffer  ourselves  to  be  called  Arians.”  Liberius 
also  declared,  “he  thought  it  more  important  to  keep  the 
laws  of  the  Church  than  to  reside  at  Rome.”  When  about 
to  depart,  lie  was  offered  a sum  of  money  for  his  journey, 
in  the  name  of  the  emperor,  but  he  rejected  it,  saying  ; 
“Thou  hast  pillaged  the  churches  of  the  earth,  and  now 
thou  offerest  me  alms  as  to  a guilty  one  ! Go  first,  and  be-  | 
come  a Christian.  ” Gibbon  deems  this  spirited  answer  in- 
sulting. The  exile  of  the  Pontiff  lasted  three  years,  and 
was  terminated  by  a decree  of  Coustantius,  in  answer  to  the 
entreaties  of  the  Roman  matrons,  on  the  occasion  of  his 

(1)  Epistle  to  Solitaries. 


Digitized  by  L.ooQle 


222 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


visit  to  the  ancient  capital.  And  now  comes  one  of  the 
most  important  questions  that  have  ever  challenged  the  in- 
vestigation of  tne  historian. 

What  change  had  come  over  Constantins  that  he  so  read- 
ily liberated  the  Pontiff,  or  rather,  had  any  change  taken 
place  in  Liberius  ? The  character  of  the  emperor  had  re- 
mained the  same  ; it  follows,  then,  say  some,  that  the  Pon- 
tiff yielded  to  the  importunities  of  the  sovereign,  and  to  the 
cruelties  of  exile.  This  is  a fearful  accusation,  and  is  made 
not  only  by  the  bitter  enemies  of  the  Church,  but  by  those 
theologians  who,  writing  before  the  Vatican  Council  had 
settled  the  vexed  question  of  Papal  Infallibility,  readily 
seized  upon  every  fact  of  history  which  might  be  brought  to 
bear  in  favor  of  “ Cis-montane  ” opinions.  Gibbon  says 
that  “ the  Roman  Pontiff  purchased  his  return  by  some  crim- 
inal compliances,  and  afterwards  expiated  his  guilt  by  a 
seasonable  repentance.”  Blondel,  Basnage,  and  other  Pro- 
testant authors,  contend  that  Constautius  did  not  accede  to 
the  prayer  of  the  Romans,  until  Liberius  had  subscribed  to 
the  second  of  the  Sirmian  formulas,  which  was  plainly  her- 
etical. Quite  naturally,  Jansenistic  writers  take  the  same 
view.  Bossuet  holds  that  the  formula  which  the  Pope 
signed  was  the  most  innocent  of  the  three,  but  that  he  erred 
in  thus  conniving  at  a dissemblance  of  truth,  for  in  this  for- 
mula the  consubstantiality  of  Christ  to  the  Father  was  not 
stated.  As  at  this  time  the  communion  of  Athanasius  was 
the  true  one,  so,  according  to  the  Bishop  of  Meaux,  Liber- 
ius was  wrong  in  condemning  him.  Cardinal  La  Luzerne, 
who,  though  not  a rank,  was  yet  a firm  Galiican,  asserts 
that  even  if  the  Pontiff  signed  the  first  of  the  Sirmian  for- 
mulas, he  became  guilty  of  heresy.  There  is  a school  of 
authors  in  which  Liberius  is  treated  with  some  considera- 
tion, but  by  which  he  is  blamed  for  having  condemned 
Athanasius  and  for  communicating  with  the  Eusebians ; also 
for  having  signed  the  first  formula  of  Sirmium,  in  which  the 
word  Homoousios , the  test  of  Catholic  doctrine,  was  omitted. 
The  most  eminent  of  this  class  are  Coustant  and  Mazocchi. 
Of  the  writers  who  defend  Liberius  from  each  and  every 
charge,  both  of  heresy  and  weakness,  the  most  distinguished 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  QE  POPE  UBERIUS. 


223 


a»e  Cardinal  Orsi,F.  A.  Zaccaria,  Peter  Ballerini  and  Palma. 

The  following  are  the  arguments  adduced  by  the  authors 
who  contend  that  our  Pontiff  was  guilty  of  heresy  : First, 

St.  Hilary,  at  No.  11  of  his  book  against  Constantius,  de- 
clares that  he  “ does  not  know  in  which  the  Emperor  showed 
the  greater  impiety ; whether  in  the  exile,  or  in  the  liber- 
ation of  Liberius.”  The  same  saint,  in  the  Fragment  com- 
mencing, “ For  the  fear  of  God,”  adduces  an  epistle  of  the 
Pope  to  the  Orientals,  in  which  he  says  : “ I do  not  defend 
Athanasius^  but  as  Julius,  my  predecessor  of  holy  memory, 
had  received  him,  I dreaded  lest  I should  be  deemed  a 

prevaricator.  But  when  I knew that  you  had  justly 

condemned  him,  I quickly  assented  to  your  decree 

Therefore,  Athanasius  being  deposed,  with  regard  to  which, 
all  of  your  statutes  are  to  be  received  by  me  and  the  Apos- 
tolic See,  I say  that  I am  united  and  at  peace  with  all  of 
you  and  all  the  Eastern  Bishops.  And  that  you  may  the  more 
securely  know  that  I proffer  true  faith  in  this  letter,  I have 
willingly  accepted,  without  any  contradiction,  as  it  has  been 
explained  by  our  common  brother,  Demophilus,  that  Cath- 
olic faith  which  was  discussed,  explained,  and  received  at 
Sirmium  by  all  our  brethren  and  fellow-bishops.”  There 
are  three  other  epistles  of  Liberius  in  the  Fragments  of  Hil- 
ary, all  redolent  of  heterodox  sentiment.  Again,  in  the  6th 
Frag,,  Hilary  cries,  “ Anathema  from  me  to  thee,  Liberius, 
and  to  thy  companions!”  And  in  Frag.  8,  he  says,  “ To  the 
prevaricator  and  to  the  Arians  I declare  anathema.”  In 
No.  4 of  Frag.  6 we  have,  “afterwards, when  Liberius  was  sent 
into  exile,  all  these  things,  which  he  had  done  or' promised, 
he  reduced  to  nothing,  writing  to  the  heretical  Arian  pre- 
varicators who  had  pronounced  unjust  sentence  against  the 
orthodox  Bishop  Athanasius.”  Second , St.  Jerome,  in  his 
Chronicle,  says  that  “ Liberius,  conquered  by  the  pain  of  ex- 
ile, subscribed  the  heretical  depravity,  aud  entered  .Rome 
like  a victor.”  And  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Authors , the  holy 
doctor  tells  us  that  “ the  African  Fortunatianus,  bishop  of 
Aquileia,  is  to  be  detestecl  because  he  solicited,  broke  down, 
and  compelled  to  an  heretical  subscription,  Liberius,  bish- 
op of  Rome.”  Third , the  Acts  of  Eusebius  show  us  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


224 


STUDIED  IS  CHURCH  HISTORY 


Pontiff,  after  his  return  to  the  Eternal  City,  publicly  teachihg 
Arianism,  and  putting  the  priest  Eusebius  to  death.  Fourth , 
the  Pontifical  Book , of  great  weight  with  Bossuet,  says 
that  when  Liberius  arrived  at  Rome  after  his  exile,  he 
dared  not  to  enter  the  city  at  once,  but  besought  the  aid  of 
the  princess  Constantia ; that  Felix,  the  Anti-Pope,  was 
then  expelled  ; that  Liberius  entered,  fraternized  with  the 
Arians,  and  persecuted  the  orthodox  who  refused  to  recog- 
nize his  authority.  At  first  glance,  these  four  arguments 
seem  to  form  a terrible  indictment  against  Liberius,  but  they 
will  not  bear  the  sifting  of  impartial  criticism. 

Now  as  to  St.  Hilary,  his  remark  as  to  the  impiety  of 
Constantius  in  the  liberation  of  the  Pope  does  not  prove 
that  the  saint  thought  that  the  Pontiff  had  assented  to  the 
Emperor’s  conditions.  We  may  auswer  with  Zaccaria 
that  this  doubt  of  St.  Hilary  may  be  taken  as  rather  ora- 
torical than  practical ; that  also  there  would  have  been  some 
room  for  it,  practically  speaking,  since  the  cruelty  of  Con- 
stantius in  exiling  the  Pope  was  well  matched  by  his  wick- 
edness in  accompanying  the  liberation  with  a false  rumor 
as  to  his  defection.  But  we  can  account  also  for  the  say- 
ing of  Hilary,  if  we  reflect  upon  the  outrageous  decree  of  the 
Emperor  that  thereafter  the  government  of  the  Church 
should  be  administered  in  common  by  Liberius  and  Felix. 
Such  an  abominable  fashion  of  withdrawing  from  the  diflb 
culty  that  he  himself  had  effected,  might  well  cause  Con- 
stantius to  seem  to  the  saint  equally  guilty  in  the  exile  and 
the  pardon.  As  for  the  Fragments  attributed  to  the  holy 
bishop  of  Poitiers,  they  are  forgeries.  In  the  first  place,  a 
clear  evidence  of  falsehood  is  shown  in  two  of  the  alleged 
letters  of  Liberius  herein  quoted.  They  are  the  epistles 
beginning  “ Studious  of  peace”  and  “Because  I know  you.” 
In  these,  Liberius  is  made  to  say  that  from  the  very  com- 
mencement of  his  reign  he  had  condemned  Athanasius,  and 
all  authentic  documents  sl  ow  that  for  a long  time  he  was 
the  most  strenuous  defender  of  the  persecuted  bishop.  But 
all  these  Fragments  are  L rejected.  The  sentiments  con- 
tained in  them  are  opposed  to  those  found  in  the  saint’s 
authentic  writings ; they  give  everything  which  might 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  LIBERIUS. 


225 


militate  for  the  Pontiff s alleged  Arianism,  but  say  nothing 
of  his  celebrated  orthodox*  letter.  Kufinus  declares  him- 
self dubious  as  to  the  defection  of  our  Pope  ; now  if  he 
knew  anything  of  the  existence  of  these  Fragments , he 
would  not  have  been  doubtful,  and  he  says  nothing  of  them. 
St.  Jerome  enumerates  the  works  of  Hilary,  but  is  silent  as 
to  the  Fragment s (1). 

As  for  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  expressly  stating  that 
Liberius  signed  an  heretical  formula,  we  may  answer  with 
Palma  that  it  is  allowable  in  matters  of  history  to  some- 
times differ  from  even  this  great  doctor.  But  it  is  far  from 
certain  that  the  Chronicle  has  come  down  to  us  uninterpolat- 
ed ; indeed,  we  have  the  testi  rnony  of  Menochius  that  noth- 
ing pointing  to  a fall  of  Liberius  is  contained  in  the  Chris- 
tina MSS.  of  the  Vatican,  and  that  is  certainly  of  the 
sixth  or  seventh  century  (2).  Literary  forgery  was  easier  in 
the  days  of  copyists  than  it  is  in  our  time,  and  the  olden  here- 
tics were  much  addicted  to  the  use  of  this  weapon.  Origen, 
Athanasius,  and  others  were  often  put  to  trouble  by  these 
gentry  ; the  first,  indeed,  owes  to  them  the  greater  part,  if 
not  all,  the  suspicion  as  to  his  orthodoxy.  What  more 
natural  then  than  to  suppose  the  audacious  Arians  guilty 
of  falsifying,  in  the  case  of  so  important  a witness  as  St.  Je- 
rome ? If  our  adversaries  are  unwilling  to  accept  our  sup- 
position, as  the  only  way  of  accounting  for  the  singular  and 
absolutely  isolated  position  among  all  Catholic  writers  of 
antiquity,  in  which  they  place  St.  Jerome,  we  can  only  say 
that  he  was  deceived,  and  that  his  sole  opinion  should  not 
militate  against  the  many  positive  arguments  to  the  con- 
trary. As  for  the  accusation  against  Fortunatianus,  taken 
from  the  book  of  th saint  on  Ecclesiastical  Authors , Palma 
regards  it  as  a proof  that  also  this  work  of  the  great  doctor 
has  been  mutilated.  For,  he  argues,  Fortunatianus  would 
not  have  urged  the  Pontiff  to  encourage  a heresy  which  he 
himself  detested.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  n iky  apply  to  our 
own  use  the  answer  which  Alexandre  gives  to  those  who 
adduce  this  passage  of  St.  Jerome  to  prove  that  Liberius 
mugt  have  signed  the  second  (plainly  heretical)  formula  of 

(1)  Acts  of  the  Dollandists , Sept . 23.  (2)  Barthelkmy,  Errors, 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


22G 


STUDIES  IN  CHUBCH  H18TOKY. 


Sinruum.  Believing  that  the  Pope  subscribed  the  first  of 
the  three  formulas,  the  Gallican  historian  says  that  St. 
Jerome  might  well  have  blamed  Fortunatianus  for  inducing 
Xiberius  to  sign  a formula  in  which  the  word  Homoousion , 
which  was  regarded  as  a test  of  orthodoxy,  was  omitted,  and 
for  having  brought  about  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius  ; 
it  by  no  means  follows  from  this  passage,  he  insists,  that 
St.  Jerome  believed-  the  Pontiff  to  have  signed  an  expressly 
heretical  document. 

As  to  the  “ Acts  of  Eusebius they  were  discovered  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  were  believed  by  Bossuet  to  be 
genuine.  They  purport  to  be  a narrative  of  the  martyrdom 
< >f  a holy  priest  who  suffered  with  the  consent  of  the  late 
convert  to  Arianism,  our  Pontiff  Liberius.  But  these 

A-ts  ” show  themselves  to  be  of  no  value,  since  they  speak 
of  a dialogue  between  the  Pope  and  Constantius  in  the 
year  359,  and  we  know  that  the  latter  left  Rome  in  358,  and 
never  entered  it  again. 

And  what  of  the  Pontijuxd  Book  ? In  the  first  ‘place. 
Muratori  holds  that  this  Diary  of  the  Popes,  as  it  may  be 
styled,  was  not  begun  until  the  eighth  century.  If  this 
opinion  be  correct,  we  must  deny  the  Book  any  value  in  the 
premises.  At  any  rate,  there  are  so  many  contradictions  in 
the  chapter  from  which  the  adverse  testimony  is  taken,  that 
we  can  place  no  reliance  upon  it,  and  must  suppose  at  least 
that  part  to  be  an  Arian  forgery.  Thus,  it  is  said  that  Li- 
berius was  pardoned  by  Constantius,  but  that  he  dai'ed  not 
enter  Rome  until  he  had  made  his  peace  with  the  Emperor 
through  the  intercession  of  Constantia.  It  is  said  too  that 
the  matter  of  dissension  between  the  Pope  and  the  Emper- 
or was  the  question  of  rebaptisrn,  a subject  some  time  for- 
gotten. We  also  read  of  an  interview  between  Constantius 
and  Liberius  in  the  year  359,  while  the  former  was  warring 
in  Pannonia  against  the  Sarmatians.  We  are  told  that  the 
ex-intruder  Felix  died  a natural  death,  but  we  know  that  he 
became  a martyr  to  the  faith.  ' 

Having  now  done  justice  to  the  arguments  of  our  op- 
ponents, we  would,  before  commencing  our  positive  defence 
of  Liberius,  ask  what  would  be  the  conclusion  if  all  that  has. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HEREBY  OF  POPE  LIBER1U8. 


227 


been  alleged  were  acknowledge  d as  true.  Alexandre  and  some 
others  will  an-wer  that  even  in  this  case,  it  could  not  be 
held  that  the  Pontiff  became  a heretic,  for  the  formula  which 
he  signe  ! (if  he  signed  any)  was  tenable,  though  it  omitted 
the  “Homoousion  that  even  if  he\lid  condemn  the  saint- 
ly Athanasius,  that  would  have  been  cowardice  and  not 
; eresy.  But  the  majority  of  those  who  strive  so  eagerly 
to  besmirch  the  memory  of  Liberius,  go  further  than  Alex- 
andre to  obtain  a de  facto  proof  that  the  Homan  Pontiff  is. 
not,  by  divine  appointment,  an  infallible  teacher.  Now  all 
their  arguments  go  to  show,  first,  that  Liberius  yielded  to 
violeuce;  second,  that  his  conduct  was  that  of  a personal 
coward,  not  that  of  one  wishing  to  teach  the  Universal 
Church — they  prove,  that  is,  nothing  against  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

But  we  propose  to  proceed  further  in  this  matter  than  a 
mere  refutation  of  the  Gallican  and  Protestant  theories.  It 
is  admitted  by  all  that  Liberius  was  faithful  up  to  the  year 
358,  and  the  sole  praise  of  his  successor,  Damasus,  is  enough 
to  show  that  in  his  last  years  he  was  free  from  heretical 
taint.  If  any  unworthy  concessions  purchased  for  him 
the  privilege  of  returning  to  his  See,  we  should  find  some 
allusions  to  them  in  those  authors  who  treat  of  that  return. 
But  these  writers  furnish  testimony  to  his  innocence.  Thus, 
Sulpicius  Severus,  in  his  Sacred  History , b.  2,  c.  49,  says  : 
“Liberius,  bishop  of  Rome,  and  Hilarius,  bishop  of  Poitiers, 
are  exiled.  . . . but  Liberius  is  soon  restored  to  the  city  on 
account  of  the  seditions  of  the  Romans''  Socrates  tells  us,  6. 
2,  r.  37,  that  “Not  long  afterwards,  Liberius  was  recalled 
from  exile,  and  resumed  his  chair,  when  the  Roman  people, 
having  risen  in  rebellion,  had  expelled  Felix,  and  the  Em- 
peror, although  unwilling , had  given  his  assent.’'  But  The- 
odoret  speaks  still  more  plainly  in  his  History , b.  2,  c.  15, 
where  he  narrates  how  the  Roman  senators  sent  their  wives 
to  Constantius  as  suppliants  lor  the  return  of  the  Pope. 
Thus  the  nobles  argued  : “ He  may  not  forgive  us  who  are 
men,  but  if  you  women  entreat  him,  lie  may  pardon  you.*‘ 
The  Emperor  received  their  recpiest,  but  answered  that  the 
Roman  See  was  not  a widow,  since  it  had  Felix  for  a spouse. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


228 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


To  this  the  matrons  replied  that  the  Homan  citizens  would 
pot  enter  the  church  while  Felix  was  in  it,  because  though 
he  himself  held  the  faith  of  Nice,  yet  he  communicated  with 
those  who  did  not  hold  it.  “ Then,”  continues  Theodoret, 
A(  the  Emperor  being  touched,  he  ordered  that  illustrious 
and  praisewothy  man  to  come  out  of  exile,  and  both  (that 
is,  Liberius  and  Felix)  to  administer  the  Church  in  com- 
mon. When  this  epistle  was  read  in  the  circus,  the  people 
exclaimed  that  the  Emperor’s  decree  was  just.  But  the 
spectators  soon  divided  into  two  factions.  . . . one  declaring 
for  this  Bishop,  the  other  for  that.  . . . then  with  one  voice 
all  cried  out,  ‘ One  God,  One  Christ,  One  Bishop.’  After  these 
acclamations  of  the  most  Christian  people,  full  of  piety  and 
justice,  the  admirable  Liberius  returned.’*  This  conclusive 
testimony  of  Severus,  Socrates,  and  Theodoret,  is  confirmed 
by  Cassiodorus  in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Tripartite  History . 
That  these  four  grave  historians  were  well  acquainted  with 
the  eventa  of  the  fourth  century,  no  one  will  deny,  and  their 
testimony  will  bear  more  to  our  point,  if  we  consider  with 
the  learned  Stilting  (1)  that  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the 
Arians  and  Semiarians  would  have  omitted  to  sustain  their 
cause  by  quoting  any  lapse  in  their  favor  made  by  a Roman 
Pontiff.  They  seized  with  avidity  upon  the  fall  of  the  un- 
fortunate Hosius  ; would  they  have  ignored  that  of  his  mas- 
ter? Not  one  of  the  many  Greek  or  Latin  fathers,  who 
flourished  in  such  number  in  the  centuries  immediately 
following  Liberius,  alludes  to  any  fall,  either  directly,  or  by 
excuse  of  it,  or  by  asserting  his  repentance. 

A strong  argument  for  the  constancy  of  the  Pontiff  is  found 
in  the  manner  of  his  treatment  of  the  Council  of  Rimini, 
held  in  359.  The  fathers  of  this  synod  accepted  a Profession 
of  Faith  which  was  Catholic  in  the  letter,  but  which  the 
usual  frauds  of  the  Arians  easily  perverted  to  a comfort  of 
heresy.  Liberius  condemned  their  action,  and  only  pardoned 
them  on  condition  that  they  should  condemn  the  accepted 
Profession,  issue  one  conformable  to  that  of  Nice,  and  cease 
all  communication  with  the  Arians.  We  find  in  Socrates  (2) 
an  epistle  of  the  Pontiff  to  the  Orientals,  in  which  he  says : 

(1)  BollandIsts.  Sept.  28,  9 9.  (2)  Book  4,  c.  12. 


' ized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  LIBERIUS. 


229 


" For  very  nearly  all  of  those  who  were  then  assembled  at 
Rimini,  and  were  deceived,  partly  by  seduction,  and  partly 
by  fraud,  are  now  returned  to  a healthy  state  of  mind,  and 
have  anathematized  the  formula  of  faith  issued  by  the 
Oouncil  of  Rimini,  and  have  subscribed  to  the  form  of  Cath- 
olic and  Apostolic  faith  once  edited  at  Nice  ; and  having  en- 
tered into  our  communion,  they  are  now  moved  by  the 
greatest  indignation  against  the  doctrine  of  Arius  and  his 
disciples/’  Such  words  are  not  consistent  with  the  sup- 
position that  the  writer  himself  had  been  guilty,  but  a few 
months  before,  of  the  same,  if  not  a greater  crime. 

Of  no  light  weight  is  the  argument  drawn  from  the  affec- 
tion of  the  Roman  people  for  Liberius,  for  both  the 
•clergy  and  the  laity  of  Rome  were  intensely  hostile  to 
Arianism  and  devoted  to  Athanasius.  Sozomenus  says,  in 
his  History,  book  4,  c 15,  “ The  Roman  people  loved  Liber- 
ius without  measure,  as  a man  in  every  sense  illustrious, 
and  one  who,  for  the  sake  of  religion,  had  bravely  resisted 
the  emperor/*  And  Theodore t,  in  book  2,  c.  27,  says  of  the 
intruder  Felix  that  “He  preserved  entire  and  inviolate  the 
formula  of  faith  drawn  up  by  the  Nicene  fathers.  But  with 
those  who  tainted  it,  he  freely  communicated,  and  for  that 
reason  none  of  the  Roman  citizens  entered  the  church  while 
he  was  inside/*  Would  not  this  affectionate  admiration  for 
Liberius  have  ceased,  if  he  had  made  shipwreck  of  his  faith, 
of  that  faith  of  Nice  which  they  so  jealously  cherished?  They 
twice  drove  Felix  from  the  city  for  merely  communicating 
with  heretics,  and  they  continued  to  love  him  who  had  ac- 
knowledged and  professed  the  heresy  itself? 

The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  the  heart  of  the  Li- 
berian controversy  lies  in  the  Pontiff  s subscription  to 
one  of  the  formulas  of  faith  drawn  up  at  Sirmium.  It  is  now 
proper  for  us  to  see  to  which  one  of  these  documents  the 
Pontiff  put  his  name,  if  indeed  he  signed  any  one  of  them, 
and  to  discover  its  nature.  Baronius  holds  that  all  three 
Gf  the  formulas  in  question  were  edited  in  the  Sirmian 
synod  of  351,  held  against  Photinus,  but  Nicholas  Faber  (1 ) 
And  Alexandre  prove  that  only  the  first  one  was  issimd  1 v 

(1)  ProJact  to  Fragm.  of  St.  Hilary. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


230 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


that  synod.  The  second  document  saw  the  light  in  the 
year  357,  and  the  third  in  the  year  359.  The  first  formula 
sins  by  omission,  as  all  that  it  contains  is  Catholic,  but  it 
lacks  the  “ Honvwu&ios  ; ” the  second  is  unmitigatedly  Arian, 
the  third  is  Semiarian.  We  propose  to  show  that  Liberiua 
could  not  possibly  have  signed  the  second  or  third ; that 
therefore  the  first,  if  any  whatever,  should  claim  our  atten- 
tion. Pagi  and  Valois  hold  that  the  Pope  subscribed  the 
third  formula ; the  following  reasons  will  show  they  are  mis- 
taken: Firstly,  Valois  himself  holds  (1)  that  the  third 

synod  of  Sirmium  was  celebrated  in  the  year  359,  in  the 
consulship  of  Eusebius  and  Hypatius,  and  that  Marcus 
Arethusius  drew  up  the  formula.  But  the  one  (if  any) 
signed  by  Liberius  is  the  one  to  which  the  sixth  Fragment 
of  Hilary  alludes  as  “that  perfidy  of  Sirmium  which  Liber- 
ius calls  Catholic/’  and  which  was  drawn  by  many  bishops 
whose  names  are  given.  Again,  this  third  formula  did  not 
appear  until  the  year  359,  and  Liberius  had  been  pardoned 
the  year  previous.  How  then  could  this  document  be  con- 
nected with  his  restoration  to  freedom?  Nor  did  he  sign 
the  second  formula,  for  the  reason  that  its  profession  of 
Arianism  was  so  patent,  so  void  of  mystification,  that  no 
possible  art  could  have  cleansed  the  signer  of  the  stain  of 
heresy.  In  case  the  Pontiff  had  signed  that  document, 
there  would  have  been  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  his  crime, 
and  our  opponents  must  admit  that  there  are  some  points- 
indicating  his  innocence.  But  we  are  not  wanting  in 
reasons  extraneous  to  the  nature  of  the  paper.  It  is  not 
likely,  says  Alexandre,  that  Liberius  signed  that  formula 
which  Constantius  himself  had  condemned,  through  the 
agency  of  Basil  of  Ancyra.  The  Pontiff  was  called  to  Sir- 
mium after  the  Anomoeans  (2)  had  been  driven  from  Antioch 
by  the  Emperor,  and  when  already  the  second  formula  had 
been  thrust  aside  as  a hideous  abortion.  Again,  we  know 
from  the  book  on  Synods  of  Hilary  that,  excepting  the 
avowed  Arians,  the  unfortunate  Hosius  was  the  only 
one  to  accept  this  formula.  And  the  document  which  Li- 

(1)  Xnttx4»*f*omMKSV3,  fj.  2,  c.  30. 

(2)  The  Anonneans  were  the  ultra  Arlans,  who  held  that  the  Son  was  anomofoj*,dlsslmUar 
to  the  Father.  Their  louder  was  Aetius. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  LIBERIUS. 


231 


berius  is  said  to  have  signed  was  subscribed  by  twenty-two 
bishops,  all  Orientals,  while  the  second  formula  was  drawn 
by  Western  prelates,  as  we  learn  from  Athanasius,  Socrates, 
and  Hilary.  This  formula  bears  the  names  of  Hosius  and 
Potamius,  while  that  attributed  to  the  Pope  makes  no  men- 
tion of  these  bishops.  Finally,  among  the  signers  of  the 
document  assigned  to  Liberius  are  numbered  Theodore  of 
Heraclea,  Basil  of  Ancyra,  and  Silvan  of  Tarsus,  all  of  whom 
must  be  excluded  from  any  connection  with  this  second  for- 
mula ; Theodore  (1),  because  he  died  two  years  ere  it  was 
i-sued  ; the  others  because  at  the  very  worst,  they  were 
■Semiarians,  and  detested  those  Anomoean  errors  which  are 
found  in  it. 

There  remains,  therefore,  only  the  first  formula,  promulgat- 
ed in  the  year  351, to  which  Jjiberius  could  possibly  have  sub- 
scribed. If  this  is  examined,  the  charge  of  heresy,  which  is 
brought  against  the  Pontiff,  must  fall  to  the  ground.  It 
reads  as  follows  : “We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, creator  and  maker  of  all  things,  in  whom  all  pater- 
nity is  in  Heaven,  and  is  named  on  earth.  And  in  His  Only- 
begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  generated  before  all 
ages  from  God  the  Father,  light  from  light,  through  whom 
were  made  all  things  in  Heaven  and  on  earth  invisible  as 
well  as  visible  ; He  is  the  Word  and  Wisdom,  true  light  and 
life,  and  in  the  later  days  was  made  Man  and  was  born  of 
the  Holy  Virgin,  crucified,  dead,  and  buried ; He  sits  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  to  come  at  the  end  of  time 
to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  will  render  to  each  one 
.according  to  his  works  ; whose  Kingdom  never  ending  will 
last  for  infinite  ages  ; He  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  the* Father, 
not  only  in  this  time,  but  in  the  future.  And  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  is,  the  Paraclete,  whom,  having  promised  Him 
to  the  apostles,  after  His  ascent  to  Heaven  He  sent  to  teach 
tnem  and  to  advise  them  in  all  things.  Through  whom  are 
sanctified  all  souls  which  sincerely  believe  in  Him.”  Now, 
although  the  word  Honioomws  is  not  found  in  this  profession, 
yet  there  is  nothing  in  it  repugnant  to  the  Catholic  doctrine 
on  the  divinity  of  the  Word.  The  omission  should  not  have 

ft)  Theodorzt.  b.  2 c.  16. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


2o2 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


been  allowed,  for  an  insertion  of  the  term  “ Consubstantial " 
was  regarded  by  the  orthodox  as  a safeguard  to  the  true 
faith.  But  all  those  who  omitted  it  were  not  regarded,  in 
the  time  of  Athanasius,  as  necessarily  heretical.  There 
never  was  a more  strenuous  defender  of  the  word  Homoousios 
than  the  holy  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  yet  he  says  in  hie 
book  on  Synods , No/ 41,  “It  is  not  right  to  regard  as  ene- 
mies those  who  accept  all  the  other  Nicene  writings,  and 

hesitate  only  as  to  the  word  ‘ Consubstantial’ for 

we  dispute  as  brothers  with  brothers,  who  are  of  the  same 
opinion  as  ourselves,  bringing  a name  alone  into  controver- 
sy. For  when  they  avow  that  the  Son  is  from  the  substance 
of  the  Father,  and  from  no  other  substance  ; that  He  is  not 
a creature  or  a thing  made,  but  a genuine  and  real  Son, 
the  Word  and  Wisdom,  existing  one  with  the  Father,  they 
are  not  far  from  receiving  the  term  “Consubstantial.” 

And  now  we  may  conclude  our  dissertation  on  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  holy  Liberius.  We  have  seen  that  the  argu- 
ments against  him  are  not  tenable,  that  there  is  abundant 
positive  evidence  in  his  favor,  and  that  if  he  signed  any  one 
of  the  Sirmian  formulas,  it  was  one  which  was  innocent  of 
heresy.  As  the  opinion  of  the  Greek  Church  in  this  matter 
may  be  of  interest  to  some,  we  will  finish  with  a quotation 
from  the  ancient  Mertology , a liturgical  book  in  use  in  both 
the  United  and  Schismatic  Churches,  and  corresponding  to 
the  Roman  Marty roloijy.  At  the  date  of  Sept.  27th,  we  read, 
“The  blessed  Liberius,  defender  of  the  truth,  was  bishop  of 
Rome  while  Constantius  was  Emperor.  His  zeal  caused 
him  to  defend  the  great  Athanasius afterwards,  Li- 

berius contended  with  all  his  might  against  the  malice  of 
the  heretics,  and  was  exiled  to  Beraea  in  Thrace.  But  the 
Romans,  who  loved  and  venerated  him,  were  faithful  to  him 
and  entreated  the  Emperor  to  restore  him.  He  returned 
to  Rome,  where  he  governed  his  flock  in  wisdom  and  died/' 
With  the  question  of  the  fall  or  innocence  of  Pope  Liber- 
ius is  intimately  connected  the  controversy  as  to  the  place 
due  to  Felix,  the  occupant  of  the  Papal  chair  during  the 
exile  of  the  former.  Bellarmine,  Baronio,  and  a few  others, 
contend  that  lie  was,  at  least  for  a time,  a legitimate  Pon- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  RIMINL 


23a 


tiff,  and  hence  they  style  him  Felix  IL  Papebroch  and 
Zaccaria  hold  that  Felix  was  a vicar  of  Liberius.  Christian. 
Lupus,  Dupin,  Alexandre,  Tillemont,  and  Orsi,  place  him 
among  the  Anti-Popes,  and  it  is  difficult  to  refute  their  ar- 
guments. If  there  was  any  time  when  Felix  was  a legiti- 
mate Pontiff,  it  was  when  Liberius  was  in  exile,  and  only 
then,  because  Liberius  had  abdicated.  But  nothing  in  his- 
tory is  more  certain  than  that  Liberius  never  abdicated  ; and 
if  he  had  done  so,  Felix  should  have  become  his  successor 
in  a legitimate  manner,  and  not  through  the  intrigues  of 
the  Arians  and  the  violence  of  Constantius.  Nor  can  an 
argument  for  the  legitimacy  of  the  claims  of  Felix  be  de- 
duced from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  ancient  records  number 
him  among  the  saints.  Granting  that  he  is  not  confounded, 
in  these  documents,  with  Pope  St.  Felix  I.,  it  does  not  fol- 
low, because  he  became  a saint,  that  he  was  never  an  Anti- 
Pope.  Upon  the  return  of  the  legitimate  Pontiff,  he  may 
have  repented  of  his  usurpation,  and  during  his  last  years 
of  life,  while,  as  Philostorgius  says  (1),  “ he  retained  the 
dignity  of  bishop,  but  governed  no  church,”  he  may  have 
advanced  to  heroic  sanctity. 


CHAPTER  XXL 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  RIMINI. 

In  the  year  358,  the  emperor  Constantius  endeavored  to 
put  an  end  to  the  dissensions  of  the  Eastern  Church,  by  call- 
ing a synod  atNicomedia.  This  city,  however,  being  devas- 
tated by  an  earthquake,  Nice  was  chosen  as  the  place  of  meet- 
ing. Another  earthquake  prevented,  as  Theodoret  thinks 
(2),  the  Arians  from  desecrating,  as  the  event  proved,  the  city 
where  was  issued  the  great  decree  upon  the  Divinity  of 
Christ.  In  859,  therefore,  a Council  was  ordered  to  assemble 

(0  History , b.  4,  n.  5. 

(2)  **  God,  who  does  not  cease  to  protect  His  Church,  would  not  have  the  Council  held 
hr "c.  lest  the  Arians  should  take  advantage  of  the  name  of  the  place,  and  by  styling  the- 
bynau  ^iceue,  should  circumvent  simple  minds.”  Hist.,  b.  2,  c.  2tS. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


234 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


at  Bimini  in  the  Romagna,  but  by  the  advice  of  the  Arians, 
the  Eastern  bishops  left  Rimini  to  the  Westerns,  and  betook 
themselves  to  Seleucia,  in  Isauria.  St.  Athanasius  tells  us, 
in  his  book  on  Synods , that  four  hundred  bishops  met  at  Rim- 
ini (1).  Julianus  Pelagianus  (2)  puts  the  number  at  six 
hundred  and  fifty,  but  St.  Athanasius  is  the  more  reliable  of 
the  two  authors,  and  is  corroborated  by  good  authority. 
When  the  prelates  had  met,  Yalens  and  Ursaeius,  obstinate 
Arians,  brought  forth  the  third  formula  of  Sirmium,  in  which 
the  Son  was  declared,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  similar 
to  the  Father,  and  asked  the  Council  to  approve  of  it,  as  it 
pleased  the  emperor.  The  bishops  rejected  it,  find  deemed 
it  sufficient  to  declare  their  reception  of  the  Nicene  Cr»*ed. 
Ursaeius,  Yalens  Germinius,  Auxentius,  Caius,  and  Dem- 
ophilus,  were  then  condemned  as  heretics  (3).  Ursaeius  and 
Valens  now  visited  Constantius,  and  so  worked  upon  his 
Arian  sympathies  that  when  the  Council’s  messengers  wait- 
ed upon  him  for  license  for  the  prelates  to  depart  to  their 
homes,  he  refused  to  receive  them.  He  had  too  much  to 
attend  to ; he  was  preparing  for  a campaign  against  the 
Barbarians ; when  he  was  at  leisure,  lie  would  listen  to  them. 
But  if  he  trusted  that  the  bishops  would  become  tired  out, 
and  would  reconsider  their  condemnation  of  Ursaeius  and 
his  companions  in  heresy,  he  was  mistaken,  for  all  the  sy- 
nod als  sent  him  word  that  they  had  instructed  their  legates 
to  inform  him  that  their  decision  was  final  (4).  When  Con- 
stantius received  this  message,  he  caused  several  bishops  to 
be  taken  to  Nice  in  Thrace,  and  there,  some  out  of  simplicity, 
and  others  from  fear,  they  were  induced  to  sign  a formula 
only  differing  from  the  third  of  Sirmium  in  that  it  declared 
the  Son  “similar  to  the  Father  in  all  things,”  while  that 
of  Sirmium  presented  the  Son  as  “ similar  to  the  Father  who 
begat  Him,  according  to  the  Scriptures.”  This  Thracian 
formula  was  then  offered  to  the  fathers  of  Rimini,  and  they 
signed  it.  On  account  of  this  action,  they  have  sometimes 

(1)  Id  his  Epistle  to  the  A tricorns,  Athanasius  says  two  hundred,  but  Baronlo  thinks  that 
this  document  has  been  corrupted.. 

(2)  In  St.  Augustine ; Imperfect  Work,  b.  1,  c.  78. 

(S)  Socrates  ; b.  2.  c.  28.  Theodoret,  b.  2,  e.  18.  Sozomencs;  b.  4,  c.  10. 

(4)  I hi. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  RIMINL 


235 


been  accused  of  heresy,  and  we  now  proceed  to  inquire  into 
the  justice  of  the  accusation. 

The  following,  according  to  St.  Jerome  (1),  is  from  the  Pro- 
fession of  Faith  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Rimini,  to 
which  the  members  subscribed : “ We  believe  in  one  true  God, 
the  Father  Almighty.  We  also  believe  this.  We  believe  in 
the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  who  was  born  before  all  ages; 
born  the  only-begotten  of  God  the  Father  alone,  God  from 
God,  similar  to  the  Father  according  to  the  Scriptures;  whose 
nativity  no  one  knows,  but  the  Father  who  begat  Him.’* 
St.  Jerome  then  continues  his  own  remarks : “ Was  it  here 

inserted  that  there  was  a time  when  He  was  not,  or  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  a creature  ? The  perfect  faith  is  the  belief 
that  He  is  God  from  God.  And  they  said  that  He  was  born, 
the  only-begotten  from  the  Father  alone.  What  means 
* born*  ? Certainly  not  4 made.’  Nativity  removes  a suspic- 
ion of  His  being  a creature.  They  also  added:  ‘Who  descend- 
ed from  heaven,  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  the  third 
day  He  arose  from  the  dead,  He  ascended  into  hea- 
ven, sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  to  come 
to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.’  The  words*  sound- 
ed piously,  and  amidst  so  much  honey  of  praise,  no  one 

•suspected  any  insertion  of  poison For  the  rejection 

of  the  word  ousia,  a plausible  reason  was  given,  that 
it  is  not  found  in  the  Scriptures,  and  it  scandalizes  the  more 
simple  by  its  novelty  ; the  bishops  cared  not  for  the  word, 
if  the  meaning  were  safe.  But  at  last,  in  the  course  of  time, 
when  popular  rumor  had  it  that  a fraud  had  been  practised 
in  the  Profession,  Valens,  bishop  of  Mursia,  who  had  written 
it  in  the  presence  of  Taurus,  the  Pretorian  prefect,  who  was 
at  the  synod  by  order  of  the  emperor,  declared  that  he  was 
not  an  Arian,  and  that  he  detested  their  blasphemies.  The 
secrecy  of  the  thing  had  not  destroyed  the  popular  opinion. 
And  hence,  another  day,  in  the  church  of  Rimini, many  bish- 
ops and  a crcwd  of  laics  being  present,  Musonius,  a By- 
zantine prelate,  whose  age  gave  him  honor  among  all,  spoke 
thus : ‘ Let  one  of  us  read  to  your  Holinesses  the  common 

n)  Diahtgue  against  the  Luciferiam . 


Digit  • Dy  v^ooQle 


236 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


reports  which  have  reached  us,  that  the  evil  things,  which 
ought  to  be  abhorrent  to  our  ears  and  hearts,  may  be  unan- 
imously condemned.’  All  the  bishops  replied : 4 It 

pleases.'  And  then  when  Claude,  a Picene  bishop,  had  be- 
gun to  read  the  blasphemies  which  rumor  ascribed  to  Yalens, 
this  prelate  denied  that  they  were  his,  and  cried  out : 4 If 

any  one  denies  that  Christ  is  God,  the  Son  of  God,  and 
born  of  the  Father  before  the  ages,  let  him  be  anathema.* 
And  all  answered : ‘Anathema.’  4 If  any  one  denies  that 
the  Son  is  similar  to  the  Father,  according  to  the  Scrip 
tures,  let  him  be  anathema.’  And  all  replied  : 4 Anathema.* 

4 If  any  one  says  that  the  Son  is  not  eternal  with  the 
Father,  let  him  be  anathema.’  All  called  ‘Anathema.'  4 If 
any  one  says  the  Son  of  God  is  a creature,  like  other  crea- 
tures, let  him  be  anathema.'  In  the  same  way  was  cried 
4 Anathema.’  4 If  any  one  says  the  Son  is  not  from  God  the 
Father,  let  him  be  anathema.’  All  exclaimed  4 Anathema.’ 
If  any  one  says  there  was  a time  when  the  Son  was  not, 
let  him  be  anathema.’  At  this,  all  the  bishops,  and  the  en- 
tire audience,  with  great  joy  and  applause,  saluted  the  words 
of  Valens.  If  any  one  deems  this  a fiction  of  ours,  let  him 
examine  the  public  archives ; the  records  of  the  churches 
are  full,  and  the  memory  of  these  things  is  recent.  Men  yet 
survive  who  were  at  that  synod,  and  to  confirm  the  truth, 
the  very  Arians  do  not  deny  that  the  proceedings  were  as 
we  have  said.  While  then  all  were  extolling  Yalens  to  the 
skies,  and  were  condemning  and  repenting  of  their  suspicion 
of  him,  the  same  Claude,  who  had  begun  to  read,  said : 
‘There  yet  remain  a few  words  which  have  escaped  my  lord 
and  brbther  Valens,  which,  if  you  please,  that  no  scruple 
may  remain,  we  will  together  condemn.  If  any  one  says 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  indeed  before  all  ages,  but  not  so 
before  all  time,  that  nothing  was  before  Him,  let  him  be  an- 
athema.’ And  all  said : ‘Anathema.’  And  many  other 
things  which  seemed  suspicious,  after  Claude  pronounced 
them,  Valens  condemned.  If  any  one  desires  to  learn  more, 
he  will  find  them  in  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Bimini,  from  . 
which  we  have  drawn  the  above.  These  things  done,  the 
Council  was  dissolved,  and  all  return  joyful  to  their  prov- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  COUNCH*  OF  BIKINI. 


337 


inces  ....  But  crimes  are  not  long  hidden,  and  a badly- 
healed  wound  opens  again.  Afterwards  Valens,  Uisacius, 
and  other  of  the  companions  in  iniquity,  illustrious  priests  of 
Christ,  commenced  to  clap  their  hands,  saying  they  had  not 
denied  that  the  Son  was  a creature,  and  that  he  was  like  un- 
to other  creatures There  were  certain  bishops,  de- 

ceived by  the  snares  of  Rimini,  who  when  they  were  unwit- 
tingly regarded  as  heretics,  protested  by  the  Body  of  the 
Lord,  and  by  all  that  is  holy  in  the  Church,  that  they  had 
suspected  no  evil  in  the  Profession.  ‘ We  thought,’  said 
they,  ‘that  its  sense  agreed  with  its  words  ; nor  did  we  fear 
that  in  the  Church  of  God,  where  there  is  a pure  Confession, 
one  thing  would  be  expressed  by  the  lips,  and  another  be 
hidden  m the  heart.  We  were  deceived  by  our  good  opin- 
ion of  evil  men ; we  did  not  think  that  priests  of  Christ 
would  combat  against  Him.’  And  weeping,  they  said  much 
more,  which,  for  brevity,  I omit;  they  were  prepared  to 
sign  the  old  Profession,  and  to  condemn  all  the  Arian  blas- 
phemies.” This  testimony  of  St.  Jerome  abundantly  proves 
that  the  fathers  of  Bimini  signed  a Profession  of  Faith 
which  was.  in  itself,  orthodox ; that  when  they  discovered 
the  fraud  of  Yalens  and  Ursacius,  they  condemned  Arianism 
and  the  Arians. 

The  same  fact  is  evinced  from  the  following  passage  of  the 
historian,  Sulpicius  Severus  (1) : “ The  emperor  forced  our 
legates  to  the  synod  of  Bimini  to  join  the  heretical  commu- 
nion, and  gave  them  a Profession  drawn  up  by  the  wicked, 
one  couched  in  deceiving  terms,  which  presented  Catholic 
truth,  while  perfidy  was  latent.  For,  lest  the  Son  should  be 
believed  to  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father,  they 
abolished,  under  a false  species  of  reasoning,  the  word  omia, 
as  ambiguous  and  rashly  adopted  by  the  Fathers,  and  not 
authorized  by  the  Scriptures.  The  same  Profession  declared 
the  Son  similar  to  the  Father,  but  there  was  the  fraud 

prepared,  that  He  should  be  similar,  not  equal Valens, 

as  though  he  were  helping  our  cause,  added  a sentence  in 
which  there  was  a hidden  trap,  namely,  that  the  Son  of  God 
was  not  a creature  like  other  creatures.  For  in  those  words, 

(1)  History , b.  2. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


m 


STUDIES  IN'*  'CHURCH  HISTORY. 


in  which  the  Son  is  declared  Hot  like  other  creatures,  He  is 
nevertheless  pronounced  a creature,  although  more  powerful 
than  the  rest.” 

St.  Augustine  indeed  informs  us  that  the  Arian  poison 
infected  many  at  the  Council  of  Rimini,  but  he  attributes 
the  calamity  of  the  fallen  prelates  to  their  simplicity : 
“Because  they  were  of  little  intelligence,  and  were  so  deluded 
by  obscure  language,  that  they  thought  the  Arians  believed 
as  they  believed”  (1).  He  adds  that  some  yielded  to  fear, 
but  that  they  immediately  recovered  their  strength.  St 
Hilary  uses  similar  language  (2). 

There  certainly  are  some  pretty  strong  passages  in  the 
writings  of  certain  Fathers,  which  seem  to  affix  the  mark  of 
heresy  upon  the  bishops  of  Rimini.  Thus,  Liberius  (3), 
Basil  (4),  Ambrose  (5),  and  Facundus  (6),  present  isolated 
remarks  which,  at  first  sight,  would  indicate  a belief  that 
these  prelates  were  formally  guilty.  But  when  these  Fathers, 
in  this  connection,  speak  of  Arian  poisoli  and  of  Arian  dogma, 
they  allude  either  to  the  Arian  communion,  to  which  the 
deceived  prelates  temporarily  adhered,  or  to  that  insidious 
Profession  which  the  Arians  had  arranged  for  the  implicit 
defence  of  their  heresy.  These  Fathers  believed  with  Fa- 
cundus (7)  that  “ a heretic  is  not  made  by  that  ignorance 
which  is  not  contumacious  to  true  doctrine,  but  by  that 
which  is  an  obstinate  defence  of  falsehood.”  There  is  one 
passage  of  St.  Jerome  (8),  however,  which  demands  more 
than  casual  notice:  “ Then  was  abolished  the  word  ousia  ; 

then  was  acclaimed  the  condemnation  of  the  Nicene  Faith- 
The  whole  world  groaned,  and  wondered  to  find  itself 
Arian.”  This  hyperbolic  saying  of  the  great  doctor  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  bishops  of  Rimini  voted  the  en- 
tire discontinuance  of  the  word  ousia ; that  they  rejected 
that  Nicene  Faith  which  they  had  hitherto  professed  and 
afterwards  acclaimed  ; that  the  entire  world  had  abandoned 
the  orthodox  faith.  The  saint  is  indignant  because  of  the 
suppression  of  a word  which  was  a great  obstacle  to  Arian 

(1)  Epist.  48. 

(2)  Epist.  to  the  Eastern  Bishops . 

(3)  Epist.  11  to  the  Easterns. 

(4)  Epist.  52,  to  Athanasius.  . 


(5)  On  St.  Luke%  c.  6. 

(6)  Book  5,  c.  8. 

(7)  B.  12,  c.  1.  ' 

(8)  Dialogue  against  the  Luciferians . 


Digitized  by  L.005  e 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  RIMINL 


239 


progress ; the  Nicene  Faith  was  joyfully  rejected,  not  at 
Bimini,  but  after  the  synod  there  held,  and  by  the  Arians 
who  boasted  that  the  Catholic  bishops  had  agreed  with  them 
in  their  Profession  ; the  whole  world  could  not  have  been 
Arian,  when  even  the  fathers  of  Bimini  were  not  Arian.  St. 
Athanasius  testifies  (1)  that  these  prelates,  impelled  by 
the  laudable  desire  of  peace,  subscribed  to  a Profession 
which  was  apparently  orthodox.  As  for  the  last  clause  cf 
St.  Jerome’s  rhetorical  passage,  we  know  that  there  were 
far  more  Catholics  than  Arians  in  the  world.  The  peoples 
of  Alexandria,  Constantinople,  Antioch,  Samosata,  and  Milan, 
resisted  with  all  their  might  the  intrusion  of  Arian  bishops 
in  those  sees.  The  immense  numbers  of  monks  and  hermits, 
who  almost  robbed  the  Egyptian  desert  of  its  name,  were, 
according  to  Athanasius,  ardent  defenders  of  the  Nieene 
Creed.  St.  Basil  (2)  testifies  that  the  immense  majority  of 
Christians  were  orthodox  ; Socrates  (3 ) and  Sozomenus  (4) 
say  that  the  Westerns,  generally  speaking,  hated  Arianism, 
while  in  the  East  the  disaffection  was  principally  confined 
to  the  use  of  the  word  “ consubstantial.”  Although  so  closely 
dependent  upon  the  emperors,  the  very  soldiers,  according 
to  Theodoret  (5),  were  Catholic  ; so  much  so,  that  Julian,  at 
the  beginning  <>t  his  reign,  dared  not  openly  show  his  hos- 
tility to  the  faith.  St.  Athanasius  says  to  the  emperor 
Jovian  (6)  : Know  then,  most  religious  Augustus,  that  this 

is  the  faith,  professed  by  the  Fathers  congregated  at  Nice, 
with  which  agree  all  the  churches  of  the  earth  ; those  of 
Spain,  Britain,  and  the  Gauls  ; those  of  all  Italy,  Dalmatia, 
Dacia,  Moesia,  Macedonia,  and  all  Achaia  ; all  those  of 
Egypt  and  Lybia,  of  Pontus.  Cappadocia,  and  the  neighbor- 
ing regions  ; all  those,  also,  of  the  East,  excepting  a few 

who  follow  the  opinion  of  Arius Although  a certain  few 

contradict  this  faith,  we  know,  most  religious  Augustus,  that 
they  are  of  no  prejudice  to  the  entire  world.”  Lucifer  of 
Cagliari  thus  urges  the  Arian  emperor  Constantius  (7)  : “ If 

(1)  Epistle  to  Rujinian.  (4)  B.  3,  c.  12. 

(2)  To  the  Xeo -Cccsarcans,  72  and  75.  (5)  B.  3,  c.  3. 

48)  B.  2,  c.  22.  (0)  Synodical  Epistle  on  Faith%  In  Theodoret , I».  4,  c.  3. 

(7)  We  Should  Die  for  the  Son  of  God. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


240 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


you  could  go  among  all  the  nations,  you  would  find,  most 
obstinate  emperor,  that  everywhere  the  Christians  believe 
as  we  do,  that  they  persist  in  this  faith,  and  like  us,  desire 
to  die  for  the  Son  of  God.  But  this  new  preaching,  this 
recent  religion,  this  blasphemy  uttered  by  you,  to  the 
detriment  of  your  salvation,  has  not  only  been  unable  to 
progress  beyond  the  Roman  confines,  with  all  your  efforts, 
but  wherever  it  has  tried  to  fix  its  roots,  it  has  withered.’’ 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  quoted  passage  of  St  Jerome 
must  be  regarded  as  hyperbolical. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL  ; FIRST  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

This  Council  was  called  to  take  action  against  the  here- 
sies of  Macedonius  and  Apollinaris,  and  to  put  an  end  to 
troubles  in  the  churches  of  Constantinople  and  Antioch. 
Macedonius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  successively  an 
Arian  and  a Semiarian,  finallv  denied  the  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  asserting  that  He  is  not  of  the  same  substance 
as  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Apollinaris,  bishop  ofLaodicea, 
taught  that  Christ  took  from  Mary  a body  without  a soul ; 
that  then  He  assumed  a soul,  but  one  wanting  mind,  the 
Divine  Word  taking  the  place  of  mind  and  intellect.  He 
erred  also  in  his  doctrine  as  to  the  flesh  of  our  Lord,  for  he  k 
held  that  the  Word  and  flesh  were  one  and  the  same  sub- 
stance, since  the  “Word  was  made  flesh  that  is,  he  taught, 
something  of  the  Word  was  changed  into  flesh,  and  the 
flesh  of  Christ  was  not  taken  from  that  of  Mary.  Against 
these  two  heresies  the  Council  took  immediate  action.  Its 
sessions  commenced  in  May,  381,  and  lasted  until  the  end 
of  July.  At  first,  Meletius  of  Antioch  was  its  president, 
but,  dying  during  the  synod;  he  was  succeeded  by  St. 
Gregory  of  Nazianzen.  This  latter  abdicating  his  see  of 
Constantinople,  Timothy  of  Alexandria  was  called  to  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL. 


241 


head  of  the  Council,  and  finally  the  presiding  chair  was 
given  to  Nectarius,  the  successor  of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen. 
The  synod  was  attended  by  a hundred  and  fifty  bishops,  all 
Orientals.  In  the  beginning  it  did  not  possess  the  author- 
ity of  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  for  it  was  convoked  by  the 
emperor  Theodosius,  and  to  it  the  Occidental  prelates  were 
not  invited  ; but  the  character  of  cecumenicity  was  affixed  to 
it  when  its  acts  were  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See.  This  oc- 
curred, in  regard  to  its  Symbol  and  its  definitions  of  faith, 
shortly  after  the  Pontificate  of  Gelasius  ; but  its  canons 
were  not  accepted  in  the  West  for  some  time  afterwards. 
St  Gregory  the  Great  (el.  590)  says : “ The  Boman  Church 
does  not  as  yet  hold,  nor  has  she  accepted,  the  canons  and 
acts  of  this  Synod ; but  she  has  received  that  which  was 
defined  against  Macedonius.” 

Before  their  separation  the  fathers  of  this  Council  wrote 
to  Pope  Damasus,  relating  their  acts  in  regard  to  faith  and 
discipline,  and  asking  that  he  and  the  Western  bishops 

would  rejoice  with  them, that  when  the  Word  of 

God  shall  be  established  by  common  consent  and  Christian 
charity  be  confirmed  among  us,  we  may  cease  to  say,  ‘ I am 
of  Apollo,  and  I of  Cephas.’  " From  this  passage  Bossuet 
(1)  concludes  that  the  Constantinopolitan  prelates  held  that 
the  assertion  of  a dogma  of  faith  is  to  be  sought,  not  in  a 
Pontifical  definition,  or  approbation,  but  in  the  common 
consent  of  thebishops.  But  the  passage  of  St.  Gregory  above 
quoted  shows  that  the  Pope  considered  his  authority  as 
superior  to  the  decrees  of  the  Council.  However,  as  this 
may  be  regarded  as  inconclusive,  we  adduce  the  testimony  of 
the  Sixth  General  Council.  Although  in  the  Second  (Ecu- 
menical Council  Pope  Damasus  was  present,  neither  in  per- 
son nor  through  his  legates,  yet  the  fathers  of  the  Sixth 
Council  declared  that  to  him  was  principally  due  the  destruc- 
tion of  Macedonianism.  This  could  only  have  been  by  the 
posterior  confirmation  of  the  anti-Macedonian  decrees,  by 
which  they  obtained  an  irrefragable  authority.  The  Coun- 
cil, in  its  eighteenth  Action , uses  the  following  language  : 
u Macedonius  denied  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Gho3t,  but 

(1)  Defence  of  the  Declaration,  . 12,  c.  8. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


242: 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


th&~grea£  emperor  Theodosius,  and  Damasus,  the  adamant 
of  iaith,  whose  strong  mind  was  not  to  be  affected  by  the 
attacks  of  outside  sects,  and  Gregory  and  Nectarius, 
brought  together  that  Synod  in  the  imperial  city.”  For 
what  other  reason  could  these  fathers  of  the  Sixth  Council 
have  styled  Damasus  “ the  adamant  of  faith”  in  connection 
with  Macedonius,  than  that  of  his  confirmation  of  the  de- 
crees condemning  that  heretic  ? They  knew  that  without 
that  confirmation  the  decrees  were  null.  They  agreed,  in 
fine,  with  the  prelates  whom  Damasus  united  in  Synod  at 
Rome  to  confer  upon  the  lately  held  Council  of  Rimini, 
who  said  that,  “ The  number  of  the  bishops  who  were  col- 
lected at  Rimini  can  have  no  influence for  neither  the 

Roman  bishop,  whose  sentence  before  all  others  should 
have  been  awaited,”  <fcc.  If  then  the  Constantinopolitan 
fathers  asked  for  the  consent  of  Pope  Damasus,  they  did  so, 
not  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  Bossuet,  because  they 
deemed  common  consent  desirable  in  definitions  of  faith, 
but  because  they  knew  that  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
Pontiff  their  decrees  were  of  no  value.  Bossuet  himself 
cites  a passage  from  Sozomeuus,  b.  6,  c.  21,  showing  how, 
when  Pope  Liberius  had  defined  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
Consubstantial  with  the  other  Divine  Persons,  the  opponents 
“ rested  their  cause,  as  the  controversy  was  ended  by  the 
judgment  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  the  question  was 
seen  to  be  terminated.”  If  it  was  the  belief  of  those  times 
that  only  the  consent  of  the  various  churches  could  put  an 
end  to  controversies  of  faith,  as  the  Gallicans  once  held,  how 
could  the  sole  decision  of  Rome  terminate  this  one  ? 

One  of  the  most  important  acts  of  the  Second  General 
Council  was  the  addition,  by  way  of  explanation,  of  sev- 
eral clauses  to  the  Nicene  Creed.  First,  to  the  clause 
“ maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible”  was  added  “ of 
heaven  and  earth”  against  the  Marcionites,  and  the  Mani- 
cbeans,  who  asserted  the  doctrine  of  two  Principles.  Second- 
ly, was  inserted  “born  before  all  ages,”  to  combat  the  teaching 
of  Photinus  that  the  Word  was  not  eternal  but  temporal, 
having  an  origin  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  and  in  the  man  Christ. 
Thirdly,  the  heresy  of  Apollinaris  caused  the  introduction 


Digitized  by 


Google 


SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL. 


24a 


of  “ by  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  the  Virgin  Mary.”  Fourthly, 
where  the  Nicene  Creed  reads  only  “ suffered, ” the  sixth 
synod  inserted  the  words  “ was  crucified  for  us  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  and  was  buried.”  It  also  added,  “ He  sitteth  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,”  and  He  is  to  come  again  in 
glory.”  And  as  Apollinaris  taught  the  doctrine  of  the 
millennial  reign  of  Christ,  and  to  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  was 
imputed  the  assertion  that  Christ  would  one  day  surrender 
His  kingdom  to  the  Father,  and  then  be  reduced  to  the  or- 
der of  the  just,  the  Council  wrote  “ of  whose  kingdom  there 
shall  be  no  end.”  Fifthly,  to  further  confound  the  Mace- 
donian errors  as  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  introduced  the 
passage  from  “ Lord  and  Life-Giver”  to  “ the  holy  prophets.” 
Sixthly,  was  added  the  concluding  clause,  beginning  with 
“ and  in  one  Holy,  Catholic  Church,”  and  terminating  with 
the  “ Amen.”  As  to  the  assertion,  made  by  some,  that  Pope 
Damasus  added  the  celebrated  clause  “ Filioqiu* ,”  “And  from 
the  Son,”  to  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed,  there  is  no  founda- 
tion whatever  for  it  (1).  In  the  Roman  Church,  this  addition 
was  probably  made  in  the  time  of  Pope  Nicholas  I (858),  as 
we  gather  from  the  Encyclical  sent  by  the  hcresiarch  Photius- 
to  the  Orientals.  Finally,  in  the  second  Council  of  Lyons 
(1274),  the  phrase  was  solemnly  sung  thrice  in  the  Creed  by 
both  Greeks  and  Latins,  but  by  special  indult  the  former  were 
permitted  to  omit  it  in  their  churches  ; and  in  the  Council 
of  Florence  (1439),  when  the  dogma  of  the  Procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  confirmed,  the  Universal  Church  approved 
of  the  addition. 

The  Second  General  Council  issued  only  three  canons, 
as  is  shown  by  Dionysius  the  Little,  and  by  the  synodical 
epistle  sent  in  382  by  Nectarius  to  Pope  Damasus.  The 
seven  canons  contained  in  the  collection  (if  Isidore  Mercator 
are  in  substance  our  three  ; the  first  corresponds  to  our 
first ; the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth,  form  our  second ; 
the  sixth  is  our  third ; the  seventh  is  not  properly  a canon, 
as  it  is  the  Symbol  of  Faith.  Of  these  canons,  the  third  alone 
is  of  special  interest  to  us.  In  it  the  fathers  decreed,  “ Let 
the  bishop  of  Constantinople  have  the  primacy  of  honor 

(1)  Alexandre  ; 4th  Cent .,  cites.  87,  art,  3. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


244 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


after  tha  Roman  bishop,  because  that  city  is  the  younger 
Rome.”  By  this  canon,  which  gave  to  a bishop,  hitherto 
subject  to  Alexandria,  the  patriarchal  dignity,  and  jurisdic- 
tion over  all  the  Thracian,  Pontian,  and  Asiatic  dioceses,  a 
radical  revolution  was  wrought  in  Oriental  discipline  ; and 
while  it  could  but  be  received  with  joy  by  the  Constantino- 
politans,  it  must  have  weighed  heavily  upon  the  hearts  of 
the  bishops  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  the  former  being 
now  relegated  to  the  third  seat  in  the  hierarchy,  and  the 
latter  to  the  fourth.  A see  which,  fifty  years  before,  had 
been  a modest  member  of  the  provincial  synod  of  Heraclea, 
found  itself  now  raised  to  a position  second  only  to  that  of 
Rome.  The  Roman  Pontiffs,  ever  zealous  for  the  rights  of 
each  and  all  of  the  churches,  for  a long  time  resisted  the 
encroachments  authorized  by  this  third  canon,  and  only 
recognized  it  when  the  entire  East  was  willing,  nay  desired, 
that  it  should  be  acknowledged.  In  the  year  418,  Pope  Boni- 
face I.  thus  reproved  Atticus,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  for 
his  arrogance  in  lording  it  over  the  bishop  of  Alexandria : 
“ I leave  it  to  your  Fraternity  to  better  understand  who  is 
master  in  humility,  who  in  pride.  But  be  it  far  removed 
from  the  priests  of  the  Lord  that  any  of  them  fall  into  the 
guilt  of  contemning  the  example  of  the  fathers  by  any  new 

usurpation If  circumstances  require,  you  can  discover, 

by  searching  the  canons,  which  is,  after  the  Roman  Church, 
the  second  see,  which  the  third.  Let  the  aforesaid  great 
churches  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  preserve  the  dignity 
grauted  them  by  the  canons,  keeping  a knowledge  of  eccle- 
siastical law."  And  Pope  Sixtus  III.  (elect.  432).  writing  to 
the  bishops  of  Illyria  that  they  should  not  obey  the 
bis’>  >p  of  Constantinople,  said,  “Do  not  deem  yourselves 
bound,  dear  brothers,  by  those  constitutions  which  the 
Oriental  Synod  willed  to  decree,  against  our  commands ; 
only  in  that  (are  you  bound)  which,  with  our  consent,  it  ad- 
judged concerning  the  faith.”  After  the  condemnation  of 
Eutychianism  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  when  most 
oi  Lite  fathers  had  left  the  city,  a canon  was  rushed  through, 
in  spite  of  the  protests  of  the  Papal  legates,  confirming  this 
third  canon  of  Constantinople.  Those  who  had  signed  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL. 


245 


canon  endeavored,  assisted  by  the  emperor  Marcian,  to  ob- 
tain the  approbation  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great,  but  in  vain. 
All  three  of  the  Constantinopolitan  canons  were  rejected  in 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  for  the  Papal  legates  cried  out, 
when  an  oriental  codex  containing  them  was  introduced, 
These  canons  are  not  found  in  the  Synodical  records/' 
And  for  a long  time  afterwards  the  Supreme  Pontiffs  declared 
that  the  Church  did  not  receive  said  canons.  It  is  true 
that  in  the  16th  Action  of  Chalcedon,  Eusebius  of  Doryleeum, 
speaking  of  the  third  canon,  says:  “I  nave  willingly  subscribed, 
because  in  the  city  of  Borne  I read  this  regulation  to  the 
Most  Holy  Pontiff,  in  the  presence  of  Constantinopolitan 
•clerics,  and  he  received  it.”  But  this  prelate  must  have 
misunderstood  the  Pontiff,  for  St.  Leo,  in  his  epistle  to 
Anatolius  of  Constantinople,  declares  the  precise  contrary. 
Pope  Gelasius,  addressing  the  bishops  of  Dardania,  well 
accounts  for  the  hesitancy  of  the  Holy  See  to  advance  the 
see  of  Constantinople  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  Alexan- 
dria and  Antioch.  “ If  it  is  a question,”  he  says,  “ of  the 
•dignity  of  the  cities,  certainly  greater  is  the  dignity  of  the 
priests  of  the  second  and  third  sees,  than  that  of  the 
priests  of  the  city,  which  not  only  is  not  numbered  among 
the  (great)  sees,  but  is  not  reckoned  even  among  those  having 
metropolitan  rights.  For  if  you  call  it  the  ‘imperial  city,' 
the  power  of  the  secular  government  is  one  thing,  and  the 
•distribution  of  ecclesiastical  dignities  another.”  At  length, 
in  the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  held  under  Pope  Innocent 
III.,  in  the  year  1215,  the  Holy  See  recognized  the  right 
of  Constantinople  to  the  second  place  in  the  hierarchy.  The 
fifth  canon  reads  as  follows:  “ Benewing  the  ancient  privi- 
leges of  the  patriarchal  sees,  the  holy  universal  Synod 
approving,  we  sanction  that  after  the  Boman  Church,  which, 
the  Lord  so  disposing,  holds  the  principality  of  ordinary 
power  over  all  others  as  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all  the 
faithful  of  Christ,  the  Constantinopolitan  church  shall 
have  the  first  place,  the  Alexandrian  the  second,  the 
Antiochian  the  third,  and  that  of  Jerusalem  the  fourth,  each 
•one  preserving  its  own  dignity.” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 


THE  APPEAL  OF  8T.  JOHN  CHRYSOSTOM  TO  POPE  INNOCENT  I. 

Among  the  many  instances  of  appeal  to  Rome  which  are 
furnished  by  the  olden  records,  our  attention  is  especially 
challenged  by  that  of  St.  John  of  the  Golden  Tongue,  both 
on  account  of  the  eminent  hierarchical  position  of  the  ap- 
pellant, and  because  of  his  brilliant  learning  and  indisputable 
sanctity.  The  great  Chrysostom  was  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, of  that  see  which  in  his  time  had  already  given  signa 
of  the  overweening  ambition  which  was  one  day  to  bring 
about  both  the  spiritual  and  temporal  wreck  of  Eastern 
Christendom.  An  appeal  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  on  the  part 
of  so  exalted  a prelate,  and  against  the  decision  of  so  power- 
ful a bishop  as  him  of  Alexandria,  who  was  recognized  as 
second  in  dignity  to  the  Pope  alone,  cannot  be  .very  tasteful 
to  gentry  of  the  Caesarean  and  Gallican  schools,  any  more 
than  to  Protestants  in  general  Hence  we. find  averse  to  an 
admission  of  such  appeal  Abp.  De  Marca  (1),  Dupin  (2), 
and  of  course,  Febronius  (3).  “ The  Romans,”  says  this  re- 
hasher of  old  and  already  confuted  arguments,  “ commenc- 
ing with  Pope  Gelasius,  conclude  that  Chrysostom  appealed 
to  Innocent,”  and  then  he  proceeds  to  repeat  the  ideas  of  De 
Marca,  Dupin,  and  the  Protestant  Basnage  (4),  the  errone- 
ousness of  which  he  has  seen  demonstrated  by  David  (5),  by 
Alexandre  (6),  by  Pagi,  and  by  Christian  Lupus  (7).  In  his 
treatment  of  this  subject,  Zaccaria  (8)  avails  himself  copious- 
ly of  the  arguments  adduced  by  the  celebrated  Franciscan 
controversialist,  Bianchi  (9),  and  we  can  do  no  better  than 
imitate  his  example.  But  before  entering  upon  an  argu- 
mentative consideration  of  our  question,  it  is  well  to  speak 
briefly  of  the  circumstances  out  of  which  it  arose. 

(1)  Concord  of  Priesthood  and  Empire , b.  7,  c.  9. 

(2)  Ancient  Discipline,  dins.  2,  c.  2.  (6*  Ftmrth  Cent .,  r/taa.  28. 

(3)  c.  5,  g 8.  ( 7 ) On  Appeal a,  diaa.  1,  c.  17. 

(4)  Annals.  (H)  Anti-Fck}»onio,  p.2,  b.  8,  c.  4. 

(5)  Canonical  Judgments,  c.  7.  (9)  The  External  Polity  of  the  Church,  t.  .\  % 

246 


Digitize  ?y  CjOOQle 


APPEAL  OF  ST.  JOHN  CHRYSOSTOM. 


247 


When,  in  the  year  398,  St.  John  Chrysostom  was  chosen 
as  their  bishop  by  the  clergy  and  people  of  Constantinople, 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria  exerted  all  his  influence,  and  de- 
scended to  every  species  of  chicanery,  to  prevent  his  acces- 
sion to  the  episcopal  dignity.  But  the  emperor  Arcadius  so 
willing,  Theophilus  accorded  the  consecration,  and  the  new 
prelate,  then  fifty-four  years  of  age,  entered  upon  a career 
which  soon  excited  the  admiration  of  the  good  and  the  hate 
of  the  wicked.  The  enmity  of  Theophilus  proved  long-lived, 
-and  it  only  wanted  a suitable  occasion  to  manifest  itself 
in  works.  This  occasion  was  furnished  in  th,e  year  401, 
when  the  saint  kindly  received  under  his  protection  some 
Egyptian  monks  whom  the  Alexandrian  bishop  had  perse- 
cuted. Chrysostom  had  also  made  many  enemies  among  the 
rich  and  powerful  by  his  eloquent  outbursts  against  their  arro- 
gance and  cruel  injustice.  Nor  were  all  of  the  clergy  friendly 
to  him  ; his  severity  in  upholding  the  canons  created  much 
excitement  among  the  lovers  of  a relaxed  discipline.  But 
neither  Theophilus  the  bishop,  nor  his  allies,  the  eunuch 
Eutropius,  and  Gainas,  a general  of  the  army,  could  avail 
much  against  the  holy  prelate  until  the  empress  Eudoxia 
came  to  their  aid.  Chrysostom  one  day  preached  a severe 
sermon  on  the  vanity  and  luxury  to  which  many  females  of 
the  capital  were  given  in  an  extraordinary  degree,  and  the 
discourse  being  represented  to  Eudoxia  as  directed  especially 
against  her  imperial  person,  she  resolved  upon  vengeance. 
Accordingly,  in  the  month  of  June,  403,  Theophilus  held 
a synod  in  a suburb  of  Chalcedon,  called  “At  the  Oak,” 
in  which  forty-five  bishops  hostile  to  the  saint,  presented 
false  accusations,  Chrysostom  himself  being  absent.  The- 
ophilus rendered  judgment  of  deposition,  and  the  emper- 
or followed  up  the  sentence  with  a decree  of  exile  : but 
under  the  combined  influence  of  fear  of  the  popular  indig- 
nation, and  of  terror  on  account  of  an  earthquake,  Eudoxia 
relented,  and  obtained  the  restoration  of  the  saint.  But 
about  eight  months  afterwards,  a statue  of  Eudoxia  was 
being  dedicated  alongside  the  church  of  St.  Sophia,  while 
divine  service  was  being  held  within,' and  Chrysostom  was 
♦so  impressed  with  the  incongruity,  and  the  disrespect  caused 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


24$ 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


bv  the  noise  of  the  accompanying  games,  that  in  his  sermon* 
he  condemned  the  participators  in,  and  the  managers  of  the 
festivity.  Then  the  smouldering  fire  burst  out  anew,  and 
in  June  of  404  another  synod  was  held,  and  the  sentence  of 
deposition  renewed.  Arsacius  was  intruded  into  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  see,  and  Chrysostom  exiled  to  Mt.  Tarsus 
in  the  Lesser  Armenia.  So  cunning  were  the  persecutors 
of  the  saint,  that  even  shrewd  and  learned  men  like  Sts. 
Epiphanius  and  Jerome  were  deceived,  and  believed  him  in 
fault.  His  enemies  tried  to  justify  their  conduct  before  Pope 
Innocent  I.,  but  when  that  Pontiff  received  an  appeal  from 
the  persecuted  bishop,  he  rescinded  the  iniquitous  decree  of' 
deposition,  and  led  the  Western  emperor,  Honorius,  to 
patronize  Chrysostom  s cause  before  his  imperial  brother, 
Arcadius.  In  the  meantime,  the  saint  had  suffered  much  in 
bis  place  of  exile — almost  a desert — and  had  been  frequently 
in  want  of  the  necessaries  of  life.  He  dragged  out  an 
existence  at  Mt.  Tarsus  for  three  years,  and  then,  having; 
been  ordered  to  PithiumintheEuxine,he  started  on  the  jour- 
ney, butsuccumbed  atComana  to  the  cruelties  of  his  guards, 
and  died  Sept.  14,  an.  407,  in  the  sixty-third  year  of  his  age. 

And  now  for  St.  Chrysostom’s  appeal  to  Pope  Innocent 
I.  We  take  it  from  Palladius,  bishop  of  Helenopolis,  a bosom 
friend  of  the  saint,  who  wrote  a Life  of  him  which  may  be 
read  in  the  edition  of  his  works  prepared  by  the  erudite 
Benedictine,  Montfaucon,  of  the  Congregation  of  St.  Maur. 
After  a narration  of  the  proceedings  of  the  synod  “ At  the 
Oak,”  and  of  his  restoration,  Chrysostom  tells  the  Pontiff 
how  he  sought  for  a hearing  before  a synod  wherein  his  ene- 
mies would  be  present,  but  not  as  judges  ; he  then  speaks 
of  his  condemnation  without  a hearing,  and  of  the  violent 
occupation  of  his  church  on  the  night  of  Holy  Saturday,  and 
then  comes  to  the  point  of  his  appeal : “ In  order  that  such 
confusion  may  not  invade  the  whole  earth  which  is  under 
heaven,  we  pray  you  that  by  your  letters  you  denounce  those 
things  wrhich  have  been  wickedly  done  against  us  by  one  of 
the  parties  (to  the  question),  while  we  were  absent,  and  not- 
declining  a trial ; that  they  may  not  have  any  value,  as  in- 
deed from  their  very  nature  they  have  none  ; and  that 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


APPEAL  OF  ST.  JOHN  CHRYSOSTOM. 


249 


those  who  have  dared  such  things,  be  subjected  to  the  penal- 
ties of  the  ecclesiastical  laws.  Concede,  therefore,  to  us,  who 
have  been  neither  convicted  nor  reprehended  nor  proved 
guilty,  the  enjoyment  of  your  letters  of  communion,  of  your 
charity,  and  of  all  other  things,  as  hither  to.’1 9 If  these  words 
of  Chrysostom  do  not  constitute  an  appeal,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  frame  one  less  open  to  exception.  But  Febronius 
contends  that  this  letter  does  not  prove  that  the  writer  be- 
lieved the  Pope  to  be  possessed  of  authority  to  rescind  his 
condemnation,  since  the  same  missive  was  despatched 
to  Yenerius  of  Milan,  and  to  Chromatius  of  Aquileia.  It 
proves  merely,  concludes  Febronius,  that  the  saint  invoked 
the  moral  influence  of  these  Western  prelates,  of  the  Pope 
included,  to  be  exercised  by  a disapprobation  of  a judgment 
irregularly  given,  and  not  by  a nullifying  action,  which  they 
were  incompetent  to  put  forth.  This  objection  had  already 
been  made  by  Dupin,  and  in  answering  him,  Bianchi  fur- 
nishes our  reply  to  Febronius.  “We  find,”  says  Bianchi, 
“ among  the  epistles  of  St.  J ohn  Chrysostom,  one  to  Chroma- 
tius of  Aquileia,  and  one  to  Yenerius  of  Milan.  But  these 
two  letters  were  written  in  the  year  406,  as  Montfaucon  ob- 
serves, that  is,  two  years  after  the  letter  to  Innocent.  And 
again,  there  is  not  a shadow  of  similarity  between  them  and 
the  letter  to  the  Pontiff.  But  it  might  be  alleged  in  favor 
of  Dupin,  that  at  the  end  of  the  epistle  to  Innocent,  as  it  is 
given  to  us  by  Palladius,  is  said,  4 this  same  was  written  to 
Yenerius,  bishop  of  Milan,  and  to  Chromatius,  bishop  of 
Aquileia.’  But  we  may  well  answer  that  this  clause  was 
added  by  some  interpolator  of  the  codex  of  Palladius.  For 
this  assertion  no  trivial  argument  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  passage  is  not  read  in  certain  MSS.  cited  by  Coustant  -r 
that  it  is  wanting  in  all  the  editions  of  the  works  of  Chrysos- 
tom ; that  it  does  not  occur  in  the  copy  of  the  same  letter 

added  by  Fronto  Duceus  to  the  epistles  of  the  saint , 

But  granted  that  Chrysostom  sent  to  Yenerius  and  Chroma- 
tius a copy  of  the  letter  which  he  had  sent  to  Innocent, 
must  we  therefore  conclude  that  he  recognized  in  them  the 
same  authority  that  he  acknowledged  in  the  Pontiff?  Not 
at  all.  These  two  bishops  were  the  chief  ones  among  the 


Digitized  by 


Google 


•250 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Italian  prelates  forming  the  ordinary  council  of  the  Pope, 
with  the  aid  of  which  council  were  decided  by  the  Holy  See 
the  most  important  affairs  of  religion  and  of  discipline. 
The  many  Councils  held  in  Rome  by  Damasus  with  the  in- 
tervention of  St.  Ambrose  of  Milan,  and  of  the  bishop  of 
Aquileia,  and  the  very  Synod  held  by  Innocent  in  the  case 
of  Chrysostom,  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  custom  of  the  Pon- 
tiffs. It  was  quite  natural  then  that,  in  appealing  to  Pope 
Innocent,  the  saint  should  write  also  to  those  two  prelates 
who  were  then  the  only  metropolitans  in  Italy,  and  should 
send  them  a copy  of  the  letter  to  the  Pontiff,  in  order  that, 
if  called  to  the  Synod,  they  would  be  well  informed  as  to  the 
state  of  affairs.  We  must  also  observe  that  the  four  bish- 
ops, who  formed  the  embassy  of  Chrysostom,  were  sent,  not 
to  Milan  or  to  Aquileia,  but  directly  to  Rome,  and  with  the 
letters  not  only  of  the  saint,  but  also  of  the  forty  prelates 
who  persevered  in  his  communion.  Innocent  answered 
the  letters  of  Chrysostom  and  those  of  the  clergy  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  only  his  answers  were  spread  through  the 
East.” 

So  much  for  the  letter ; now  as  to  its  reception  by  Pope 
Innocent.  As  Palladius  writes,  the  Pontiff  reprobated  the 
judgment  of  Theophilus,  but  Febronius  answers  that  so 
did  Venerius  and  Chromatius,  and  others,  but  not  in  a 
judicial  manner.  To  this  we  reply  that  Palladius,  speaking 
of  this  reprobation,  uses  the  word  atheteo , which  word,  be- 
sides its  general  significance  of  reproving,  possesses  also  the 
sense  of  alrrogating,  abolishing , cancelling  (1).  That  the  sentence 
of  Theophilus  was  really  cancelled  by  Pope  Innocent,  was  be- 
lieved by  Pope  Gelasius,  who  wrote  to  the  bishops  of 
Dardania  that  the  Apostolic  See  (alone,  says  the  Pontiff) 
had  absolved  John  of  Constantinople,  whom  a Synod  “even 
of  Catholic  prelates,  had  condemned.’ ' Such  was  the  opinion 
of  Pope  Yigilius,  who,  in  his  Constitution , declares  that  neither 
Chrysostom  nor  Flavian  could  be  cut  off  from  the  Church, 
because  the  Holy  See  adjudged  them  to  be  most  firmly  unit- 
ed to  her.  But  according  to  Febronius,  or  rather  Dupin, 
Pope  Innocent  himself  confesses,  in  his  letter  to  the  clergy 

(1)  See  Mansi’s  notes  to  Alexandre’s  2Slh  Dissertation*  in  Fourth  Century. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


APPEAL  OF  ST.  JOHN  CHRYSOSTOM. 


251 


of  Constantinople, that  a Synod  was  necessary  for  his  judicial 
decision.  “ That  alone,”  says  the  Pontiff,  “ will  calm  the 
waves  of  such  tempests.”  Only  ignorance  of  ecclesiastical 
law,  or  perhaps  the  passion  of  party,  can  excuse  the  prof- 
fering of  such  an  objection.  “ We  must  observe,  says 
Bianclii,“  that  although,  regularly  speaking,  an  appeal  to  a 
legitimate  judge  entails  the  suspensive  act,  that  is,  renders 
necessary  an  inquiry  by  the  judge  into  the  merits  of  the 
case,  suspending  the  execution  of  the  sentence,  and  placing 
the  appellant  in  his  pristine  condition  ; sometimes,  never- 
theless, the  sentence  is  not  suspended.  The  cases  of  such 
non-suspension  of  execution  are  named,  in  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  jurisprudence.  Again,  it  is  one  thing  to  appeal 
from  an  unjust  sentence  of  a competent  judge,  who  has  act- 
ed according  to  the  proper  mode  of  procedure,  and  quite 
another  thing  to  appeal  from  a sentence  which  is  null  and 
void  through  defect  of  authority  in  the  judge,  or  on  account 
of  a judicial  error  in  the  proceedings.  In  the  first  case,  it 
may  happen  that  the  appeal  may  not  entail  the  suspensive 

act,  but  never  in  the  second. Now,  as  the  judgment 

pronounced  against  Chrysostom  by  the  Eastern  Synod  was 
null  because  given  by  incompetent  judges,  because  rendered 
in  the  absence  of  the  accused,  Innocent  having  accepted  the 
appeal,  and  heard  the  embassadors  from  each  side,  did  first 
of  all  what  legality  demanded ; he  annulled  the  acts  of 
Theophilus,  and  restored  Chrysostom  to  his  see,  giving  him 
the  ecclesiastical  communion,  and  with  it,  the  possession  of 
all  his  rights.  But  the  Pontiff  prudently  abstained  from 
any  judgment,  so  to  say,  in  petitorio , with  regard  to  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  the  accusations,  reserving  them  to  the  considera- 
tion of  a Synod.  This  then  was  the  first  judgment,  most 
proper  and  most  legal,  of  Innocent,  and  by  it  Chrysostom  was 
not  as  yet  declared  innocent  of  the  accusations,  but  restored 
to  those  rights  of  which  he  had  been  violently  despoiled. 
And  because  Innocent  reserved  to  another  Synod  the  consid- 
eration of  the  cause  in  devolutivo , it  does  not  follow  that  he 
thought  he  could  not  himself  consider  it ; he  had  already 
treated  it  in  suspensivo,  therefore  he  might  consider  it  in 
petitorio  and  in  devolutivo . But  the  gravity  of  the  question. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


252 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


a party  to  which  was  composed  of  so  many  Eastern  bishops, 
among  whom  was  Theophilus,  first  prelate  of  the  Orient, 
and  already  celebrated  in  the  West  for  his  Paschal  Letters , 
translated  by  Jerome,  and  which  party  was  aided  by  the 
Byzantine  court,  demanded  that  the  Pontiff  should  not  judge 
of  it  by  himself,  but  together  with  a General  Synod,  over 
which  would  preside  his  legates,  who,  in  his  name,  would 
give  the  Synodical  sentence.”  It  was  better,  in  fine,  that 
judgment  should  be  delivered  as  was  afterwards  done  in  the 
case  of  Nestorius  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  in  that  of 
Dioscorus  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  Pope  Innocent  thought  he  had  no  right  to 
pronounce  a definitive  decision. 

Our  position  is  confirmed  by  the  letter  of  the  emperor 
Honorius  to  his  brother  Arcadius,  touching  the  cause  of 
Chrysostom.  He  depicts  the  lamentable  disorders  in  the 
Eastern  churches,  and  shows  how  both  parties  to  the  present 
dispute  had  sent  legates  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  those 
of  Italy,  and  had  referred  the  cause  to  the  Roman  See.  He 
then  insists  that,  pending  the  decision,  nothing  further  should 
have  been  undertaken ; and  yet,  he  says,  the  accused  had 
been  sent  with  unprecedented  haste,  into  exile.  Had  the 
recourse  of  Chrysostom  to  Rome  not  had  the  force  of  an  ap- 
peal, suspending  the  execution  of  the  first  judgment,  the  action 
of  the  saint’s  enemies  would  not  have  been  so  irregular  as 
the  complaint  of  Honorius  declares  it  to  have  been.  Nor  can 
Febronius  draw  any  comfort  from  the  fact  that  the  emperor 
says  that  legates  were  sent  also  to  the  “ bishops  of  Italy.”  In 
settling  the  appeals  of  bishops,  the  Pontiffs  were  accustomed 
to  examine  them  in  a council  of  those  prelates  who  formed 
their  supreme  senate,  just  as  secular  monarchs  proceed  in  a 
council  of  ministers.  But  who  will  say  that  the  ministers 
of  a prince,  when  united  in  cabinet  council,  have  the  same 
authority  as  the  sovereign  ? 

After  holding  a Synod  at  Rome,  Pope  Innocent  resolved 
to  convoke  one  at  Thessalonica,  to  be  composed  of  both 
Eastern  and  Western  bishops.  Nothing  more  is  needed  to 
throw  sufficient  light  upon  this  question  than  his  instruction 
to  his  legates.  He  orders  that  Chrysostom  “ shall  not 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIANISM. 


25? 


appear  for  judgment,  until  he  is  restored  to  communion 
and  to  his  see,  so  that  all  occasion  for  refusing  the  sentence 
being  removed,  he  may  willingly  come  to  the  assembly.” 
Innocent  had  therefore  judged  the  cause  of  the  saint,  at 
least,  in  suspensivo , and  had  therefore  treated  his  letter  as  , 
an  appeal.  There  is  no  question  about  the  propriety  of  re-  I 
storing  him  to  his  rights  ; that  the  Pontiff  absolutely  com- 
mands. The  Thessalonican  Synod  was  merely  to  inquire  into 
the  truth  of  the  accusations  brought  by  Theophilus  against 
Chrysostom,  and  to  punish  those  persons  who  had  sa 
shamefully  violated  the  canons  of  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

PELAGIANISM. 

Whether  Origen  was  to  blame  in  any  way,  as  a forerun- 
ner of  this  heresy,  is  disputed  by  men  of  erudition  and 
acumen ; that  Theodore  of  Mopsueste  (d.  428)  and  Rufinus 
(d.  410)  were,  we  may  gather  from  Marius  Mercator  (1)  and 
from  St.  Jerome  (2)  respectively.  The  latter  says  of  Ru- 
finus, that,  although  dead,  “ he  yet  barks  by  means  of  a big 

and  corpulent  dog  of  Albion for  he  has  a progeny 

of  the  Scottish  race  (which  is)  in  the  neighborhood  of  Brit- 
ain.” Among  the  continentals  of  those  days,  the  Britons 
and  Scots  or  Irish  were  frequently  confounded.  Hence,  it 
is  not  strange  to  hear  St.  Jerome  calling  Pelagius  a 
Scot,  “ too  heavy  with  Scotch  porridge”  (3).  Pelagius  was 
a British  monk,  but  he  never  took  Holy  Orders,  probably 
not  even  the  minor  ones,  for  Pope  Zosimus  styles  him  a 
layman  (4).  According  to  Orosius,  he  was  fond  of  the 
pleasures  of  the  table,  bloated  in  the  face,  and  h^avy 
shouldered.  But  St.  Augustine  certainly  for  a time  be- 
lieved him  to  be  a holy  man  (5),  audit  was  only  when  he 
became  better  acquainted  with  him  that  he  altered  his. 

(1)  Preface  to  Annotations  on  the  Writings  of  Julian. 

(2)  Preface  to  Jeremiah , h.  5.  (4)  Epist.  to  Aurelius. 

(8)  Idem , b.  1.  (5)  Remission  of  Sins , b.  8.  c.  1. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


254 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


mind  (1).  Pelagius  had  a happy  knack  of  making  valuable 
acquaintances,  and  wherever  he  went,  he  made  good  use  of 
a store  of  introductory  letters  from  bishops,  nobles,  influ- 
ential matrons,  Indy  nuns,  Ac.,  all  sounding  his  praises  both 
as  to  learning  and  sanctity.  His  greatest  successes  were 
among  noble  ladies,  whose  love  of  novelty  easily  led  them 
to  lend  their  valuable  aid  in  extending  the  sect.  It  would 
seem  that  the  new  heresy  made  its  first  appearance  about 
the  year  405,  for  in  an  epistle  written  in  417,  Pelagius  alludes 
to  a letter  written  by  himself  “ twelve  years  ago  ’’  to  tt.  Paul- 
inus,  and  St.  Augustine  tells  us  that  he  read  that  letter,  and 
found  it  corrupted  with  Pelagianism.  The  principal  disciple 
of  Pelagius  was  a Scottish  monk  named  Caelestius,  and  so  ac- 
tive was  he  in  the  propagation  of  the  heresy  that  in  many 
places  the  innovators  were  called  Cmlestians  ; indeed,  it  was 
under  that  name  that  they  were  condemned  at  Ephesus.  Ac- 
cording to  St.  Augustine,  Caelestius  was  “ a man  of  the 
keenest  intellect,  which,  had  it  been  corrected,  would  have 
profited  many.'*  He  wrote  many  books,  which  were  pre- 
served by  Marius  Mercator,  and  have  been  well  criticized 
by  the  erudite  Jesuit,  John  Gamier. 

Before  we  proceed  to  sketch  the  progress  of  Pelagianism, 
it  is  well  to  note  in  what  its  errors  consisted  The  basis 
of  the  entire  system  was  the  erroneous  assertion  that  Adam 
and  Eve  were  created  as  mortals,  so  that,  whether  they 
tinned  or  not,  they  would  have  died.  This  sin  of  our  first 
parents  injured  themselves  alone,  and  when  infants  are  born, 
they  are  in  that  state  in  which  Adam  and  Eve  were,  before 
the  fall.  Hence  infants,  even  if  not  baptized,  attain  to 
eternal  life.  According  to  Pelagius,  concupiscence  and 
death  are  natural  conditions  of  humanity,  even  as  it  was 
created,  and  therefore,  human  nature  has  not  been  vitiated 
by  the  fall.  If  it  has  not  been  vitiated,  it  remains  as  in  the 
beginning,  and  by  its  own  innate  strength,  is  able  to  avoid 
all  sin.  Hence,  divine  grace  is  not  necessary  to  man,  that 
he  may  perform  meritorious  works.  From  these  general 
principles  were  derived  an  immense  number  of  errors,  per- 
meating through  the  entire  economy  of  the  Christian 

(1)  Deed#  of  Pelagius , c.  22. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIANISM. 


255 


system,  but  which  it  is  not  our  province  to  indicate.  The 
morality  of  the  Pelagians  was  detestable.  Aoeeading  to 
them,  ignorance  and  forgetfulness,  even  when  vincible,  ex- 
cuse from  sin.  No  rich  man  can  enter  into  heaven,  unless 
he  has  sold  all  he  possessed.  They  exaggerated,  far  beyond 
the  limits  of  truth  and  common  sense,  the  necessity  of 
modesty  in  dress,  of  taking  no  oaths,  and  of  loving  our 
enemies.  With  regard  to  the  last,  however,  they  inconsist- 
ently held  that  an  enemy  was  never  to  be  believed.  Pelagius 
was  very  favorable  to  the  “ woman’s  rights  ” theory ; hence 
St.  Jerome  upbraids  him,  saying  (1),  “ Thy  liberality  is  so 
great,  in  order  that  thou  mayest  conciliate  the  favor  of  thy 
Amazons,  that  in  another  place  thou  writest  that  women 
should  have  a knowledge  of  the  Law,  whereas  the  Apostle 
teaches  that  they  should  be  silent  in  the  Church,  and  that 
they  should  consult  their  husbands  at  home,  as  to  what 
they  ignore.  Nor  is  it  enough  for  thee  to  give  thy  women  a 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures ; thou  must  needs  be  rejoiced 
with  their  voices  in  canticles.  Who  does  not  know  that 
females  should  sing  in  tfieir  own  rooms,  and  not  before  a 
crowd  of  men?” 

After  having  spent  some  time  in  Home,  during  which  they 
insinuated,  rather  than  taught,  their  heresy,  Pelagius  and 
Cselestius  crossed  into  Africa  in  the  year  411,  at  the  time  of 
the  Conference  at  Carthage  in  the  affair  of  the  Donatists. 
The  former  went,  in  the  following  year,  to  Jerusalem,  the 
latter  remaining  for  missionary  work  at  Carthage.  The 
bishop,  Aurelius,  soon  excommunicated  him,  and  he  went 
to  Ephesus,  where  he  managed  to  be  ordained  a priest. 
During  the  next  few  years,  St.  Augustine  spent  much  of  his 
time  in  preaching  against  the  slowly  spreading  heresy,  and 
in  the  year  414  he  received  from  two  of  the  perverts  of 
Pelagius  a copy  of  a book  which  the  heresiarch  had  written 
in  answer  to  the  epistle  of  St  Jerome  to  Ctesiphon,  which 
had  bitterly  attacked  his  errors.  This  was  the  cause  of  St. 
Augustine’s  work  on  . Nature  and  Grace . Pelagius  had  by 
this  time  made  many  friends  in  Palestine,  among  them,  no 
less  a personage  than  John,  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  This 

(1)  Dialogues,  h.  1. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


256  STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

prelate,  in  order  to  justify  Pelagius,  called  a Synod  of  his 
priests  in  the  year  415.  Orosius,  a celebrated  Spanish  priest, 
whom  St.  Augustine  had  sent  to  the  Holy  Land  to  study 
under  St.  Jerome  on  the  “ origin  of  souls,”  was  present,  and 
narrated  to  the  synodals  what  he  had  heard  Pelagius  say  at 
Carthage  in  412,  when  arraigned  in  a Synod  in  that  city. 
This  was  that  “ man  can  be  without  sin,  if  he  wishes/*  and 
that  “ the  commandments  of  God  can  be  easily  kept.”  To 
this  assertion  of  Orosius,  Pelagius,  who  was,  by  order  of  the 
bishop,  seated  among  the  priests,  took  exception.  “ He  had 
not  said  that  this  could  be  done  without  the  help  of  God.” 
The  bishop  said  the  exception  was  well  taken,  and  confirmed 
it  by  Scripture.  Orosius  then  protesting  that  John  could 
not  be  both  judge  and  counsel,  an  altercation  ensued,  the 
upshot  of  which  was  that  a decision  was  given  that  a cause 
which  had  arisen  among  Latins,  should  be  settled  by  Latins, 
and  the  affair  was  remitted  to  the  Pope.  Towards  the  end 
of  the  year,  this  farce  was  rivalled  by  another  at  Kama,  then 
called  Diospolis.  A Synod  was  held  by  Eulogius  of  Ctes- 
area,  to  consider  the  complaints  made  against  Pelagius  by 
two  Gallic  prelates,  Eros  and  Lazarus.  The  heresiarch  had 
recourse  to  his  large  stock  of  recommendatory  letters,  and 
presented  one  from  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers.  The  records  of 
the  Synod  say  that  the  heresiarch  was  then  asked  as  to  his 
own  and  Caelestius’  doctrine.  “ What  does  the  monk  Pelagius 
here  present  say  to  these  Chapters  ? The  Holy  Synod  and 
the  Holy  Church  of  God  reprobate  them.  Pelagius  answered, 

‘ I again  say,  according  to  their  own  testimony,  these  are 
not  mine  ; for  them  I owe  no  satisfaction.  What  I have 
avowed  to  be  my  own,  I affirm  to  be  true  ; what  I have  said 
are  not  my  own,  these,  according  to  the  judgment  of  Holy 
Church,  I reject,  saying  anathema  to  every  one  contradicting 
the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  For  I believe 
in  the  Trinity  of  one  substance,  and  in  everything  taught  by 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  If  any  one  avows  things  contrary 
to  her  doctrine,  let  him  be  anathema.’  The  Synod  said  : 
Now  that  we  are  satisfied  as  to  the  persecution  of  the  monk 
Pelagius  here  present,  who  really  consents  to  pious  doctrine, 
^ind  who  rejects  and  anathematizes  what  is  contrary  to  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIANISJC. 


257 


faith  of  the  Church,  we  acknowledge  that  he  is  of  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church.’’  It  is  to  be  observed  that,  though 
deceived  by  Pelagius,  this  local  Synod  did  not  approve  his 
doctrine.  Falsely,  therefore,  he  boasted  of  a victory  for  his 
teachings.  After  this  piece  of  fraud,  the  Pelagian  faction 
waxed  so  turbulent  and  audacious,  that  they  set  fire  to  the 
monasteries  under  the  care  of  »St.  Jerome,  and  killed  several 
persons,  the  holy  doctor  narrowly  escaping  to  a fortified 
tower  (1).  When  Aurelius  of  Carthage  learned  from  Orosius 
of  the  doings  at  Jerusalem  and  Diospolis,  he  held,  in  416, 
a Synod  of  sixty-eight  bishops  of  the  Proconsulate,  and  con- 
demned both  Pelagius  and  Caelestius.  The  Ads  of  the  Synod 
were  sent  to  Pope  Innocent  I.  “We  thought  it  right,”  said 
the  bishops,  “ Holy  Brother,  to  send  our  Ads  to  your  Chari- 
ty, that  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  might  be  added 
to  the  statutes  of  our  mediocrity,  to  guard  the  salvation  of 
many,  and  to  correct  the  perversity  of  some.”  In  the  year 
416,  Silvanus,  primate  of  Numidia,  held  a Synod  of  61  bish- 
ops at  Milevi,  which  accused  the  two  heresiarchs  to  the  Pon- 
tiff, and  concluded  its  epistle  in  these  words:  “We  believe  that, 
by  the  help  of  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  and  God  Jesus  Christ, 
who  deigns  to  guide  thee  when  consulting  Him,  and  to  hear 
thee  when  praying  to  Him,  those  who  hold  such  perverse 
and  pernicious  things  will  more  easily  yield  to  thy  authority, 
derived  from  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ; that  we 
may  rather  rejoice  because  of  their  correction,  than  lament 
their  destruction.”  Pope  Innocent  I.,  having  received  the 
Relations  of  the  African  Synods,  now  condemned  the  two 
primary  errors  of  Pelagianism,  and  defined  the  two  opposing 
dogmas  on  the  necessity  of  grace  and  on  infant  baptism. 
In  a * Rescript  to  Silvanus  and  the  other  fathers  of  the 
Milevitan  Synod,  he  says,  “ Wherefore,  in  the  authority  of 
Apostolic  vigor,  we  decree  that  Pelagius  and  Caelestius,  that 
is,  the  inventors  of  new  words are  deprived  of  ecclesias- 

tical communion,  until  they  withdraw  from  the  snares  of  the 
devil,  in  which  they  are  held  captive  according  to  his  will ; 
that  they  be  not  received,  in  the  meantime,  into  the  Fold  of 
the  Lord,  which  they,  following  the  perverse  path,  have 

(1)  AuousTiNit,  Deeds  of  Pelagias,  last  chap . 


Digitized  by 


Google 


258 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


willed  to  desert At  the  same  time  we  command,  that 

any  who  may  with  similar  pertinacity  attempt  to  defend  the 
same,  shall  be  punished,  <fcc.  Let  this  fixed  sentence  remain> 
therefore,  against  the  aforesaid,  <fcc.  We  order,  nevertheless, 
that,  since  Christ  the  Lord,  by  His  own  will,  has  signified 
that  He  wills  not  the  death  of  the  dying,  but  that  he  be 
converted  and  live  ; if  ever  any  shall  recover,  and  having 
abandoned  the  error  of  depraved  dogma,  shall  condemn 
those  things  for  sake  of  which  they  have  condemned  them- 
selves, the  customary  medicine,  that  is,  her  associa- 
tion, shall  not  be  refused  them  by  the  Church.”  With  the  re- 
ceipt of  this  Rescript  of  St.  Innocent,  says  St.  Augustine, 

“ the  cause  was  finished;  ” but  well  did  he  add,  “would  that 
the  error  also  were  ended ! ” 

Soon  after  these  events,  Pope  Innocent  died,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded, on  tire  18th  March,  417,  by  Zosimus.  Scarcely  had 
he  been  seated  in  the  Apostolic  chair,  when  there  arrived 
from  Palestine  a letter  which  Pelagius  had  addressed  to  the 
defunct  Pontiff.  In  it  he  accused  of  calumny  the  two  Gallic 
bishops  who  had  attacked  him  at  Diospolis  ; he  enclosed  a 
Profession  of  Faith  calculated  to  deceive  ; he  enclosed  also 
an  intercessory  letter  from  Praylius,  the  new  bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem. The  new  Pontiff  was  also  approached  by  the  her- 
etics from  another  quarter.  Although  a superior  man  to 
the  Augustinian  monk,  Pelagius  was  in  many  respects, 
physical  and  ^moral,  the  Luther  of  his  heresy ; Cffiles- 
tius  was  no  less  its  Melancthon.  Far  more  learned 
than  his  master,  and  much  more  conciliatory,  because 
naturally  more  cunning,  he  was  the  fitter  man  to  carry  on 
the  struggle  in  Rome.  Accordingly,  he  now  appeared  in 
the  Eternal  City,  and  presented  a humble  petition  to  <2osi- 
mus.  In  it  he  denied  original  sin,  but  tried  to  ward  off  the 
charge  of  heresy  by  saying,  “ If  by  chance  any  error  of  ig- 
norance has  crept  in,  let  it  be  corrected  by  your  judgment.” 

He  promised  to  condemn  whatever  the  Holy  See  would  con-  ' 
demn.  Zosimus  then  gave  him  letters  to  the  African  bish- 
ops, in  which  he  reprimanded  them  for  giving  too  easy  cre- 
dence to  the  accusations  of  two  deposed  and  vagrant  prelates 
(Eros  and  Lazarus  had  been  deposed  in  Gaul).  He  then 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIANI8M, 


25if 

said,  “ Hence  we  have  decided  nothing  in  the  present  case 

immaturely  or  impulsively, wherefore,  within  twa 

months  let  them  come  to  show  that  he  (Cselestius)  believes 
otherwise  than  lie  has  pretended  in  his  writings  to  us,  and 
in  his  Profession  of  Faith,  or  else,  after  the  open  and  mani- 
fest explanation  he  has  made,  let  your  Holiness  know  that 
no  doubt  remains.”  When  the  letter  of  Pelagius  arrived,  it 
produced  about  the  same  effect  on  the  mind  of  Zosimus  as 
the  interview  with  Caelestius  had  done,  and  the  result  was 
another  letter  to  the  African  bishops  of  the  same  tenor  as 
the  first.  Upon  the  receipt  of  these  epistles,  Aurelius  of 
Carthage  immediately  held  a Synod  of  all  the  African  bish- 
ops, which  sent  a letter  to  the  Pontiff,  begging  him  not  to 
interfere  with  the  judgment  of  his  predecessors  until  he 
had  examined  the  proofs  of  fraud  which  would  soon  be  sent 
to  him.  Zosimus  having  received  all  the  documents  which 
the  Africans  sent  to  expose  the  tricks  of  the  Pelagians,  he 
now  summoned  Cmlestius  to  a “ fuller  audience.”  But  the 
wily  disturber  felt  that  his  time  had  come,  and  fled  from 
Rome.  Thereupon,  the  Pontiff  condemned  both  Pelagius 
and  Caelestius,  and  their  doctrines.  When  the  news  of  the 
condemnation  reached  Africa,  another  plenary  Council  of 
the  Africans  was  held  in  May,  418,  in  which  214  bishops 
received  the  letters  of  Zosimus  with  acclamations  of  joy, 
because,  as  St.  Prosper  said,  the  Pope  “ had  armed  their 
right  hands  with  the  sword  of  Peter.” 

Having  now  glanced  at  the  origin,  nature,  and  condemna- 
tion of  Pelagianisra,  we  must  give  place  to  some  considera- 
tions which  naturally  arise  from  the  facts  we  have  narrated. 
And  firstly,  we  have  heard  St.  Augustine  saying  that,  after 
the  definition  of  St.  Innocent  I.,  “the  cause  was  finished.” 
The  opponents  of  the  irreformability  of  Papal  definitions 
hold  that  the  holy  bishop  of  Hippo  merely  signified  by  this 
phrase  that,  as  the  Universal  Church  had  consented  to  Pope 
Innocent’s  decree,  nothing  more  was  needed  for  a perfect 
knowledge  of  the  heretical  nature  of  Pelagianism.  But  that 
liis  idea  was  that  a Pontifical  decision  is,  by  itself,  conclu- 
sive of  a cause,  will  appear  from  the  following  reflections. 
We  have  seen  that  after  the  Carthaginian  synod  of  416  con- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


260 


STUDIES  IN  CHUttCH  HIST01IY. 


demned  the  teachings  of  Caelestius,  it  wrote  to  Pope  Inno- 
cent, saying,  “We  send  our  Ads  to  your  Charity,  that  the 
authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  maybe  added  to  the  statutes 
of  our  mediocrity,  to  guard  the  salvation  of  many,  and  to 
correct  the  perversity  of  some.*’  It  thought,  therefore,  that 
the  authority  of  Rome  was  necessary  to  “ guard  the  salva- 
tion of  many that  is,  the  many  whom  a provincial  Synod’s 
teaching  would  not  deter  from  heresy,  would  be  held  back 
by  an  infallible  guide.  Hence,  when  that  authority  was  ex- 
ercised, “ the  cause  was  finished,”  according  to  Augustine, 
who  participated  in  that  Synod,  and  certainly  knew  its  mind 
as  well  as  any  man  in  Africa.  The  Milevitan  Synod  also  deemed 
it  necessary  to  invoke  the  authority  of  the  Pontiff,  and  pre- 
cisely for  the  same  end.  But,  it  may  be  urged,  the  Milevi- 
tan fathers  only  desired  from  Innocent  some  Scripture  tes- 
timony with  which  to  confound  the  Pelagians.  If  the  read- 
er will  again  run  over  the  words  of  these  bishops,  he  will 
see  that  this  interpretation  is  indeed  strained.  And  again, 
the  Milevitans  already  possessed  the  writings  of  Augustine 
and  others,  which  were  well  stocked  with  Scripture  argu- 
ments against  the  heretics.  To  these,  the  Pelagians  would 
not  yield;  hence,  the  bishops  invoked  the  authority  of  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  which  the  Pelagians  admitted  to  be  proved 
by  Scripture.  In  his  letter  to  the  Milevitans,  Innocent 
throws  light  on  this  matter.  He  says  that  they  know  that 
u responses  ever  go  from  the  Apostolic  source  to  seekers 

from  all  the  provinces especially  when  a question  of 

faith  is  ventilated,  all  our  fellow-bishops  should  have  recourse 
only  to  Peter,  that  is,  to  the  author  of  their  name  and  honor, 
as  your  Lovingness  has  now  done  ; that  there  may  be  profit 
to  all  the  churches  throughout  the  world.  Wherefore  we  de- 
cree that  Pelagius  and  Cmlestius,  the  inventors  of  new  words, 
be  deprived,  &c.”  St.  Augustine  himself  in  many  instances 
plainly  indicates  the  sense  in  which  he  said  that  “ the 
cause  is  finished.”  Thus  (1),  ‘ All  doubt  in  this  matter  was 
removed  by  the  letters  of  Pope  Innocent  of  blessed  mem- 
ory.” And  he  tells  us  that  although  Cffilestius  refused  to 
condemn  what  Paulinus  the  Deacon  declared  he  taught,  he 

(1)  To  Boniface,,  b,  2,  c.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIANI8M. 


261 


-could  not  resist  the  letters  of  Innocent  (1).  When  some 
wished  another  examination,  he  asked,  “ Why  do  you  still 
demand  an  examination,  when  it  has  been  given  already  by 
the  Apostolic  See?’  (2) 

A point  is  raised  by  Bossuet  which  claims  our  attention. 
Peeping  into  every  nook  and  corner  of  history  in  the  search 
for  instances  of  Papal  errability,  he  came  across  the  conduct 
of  Pope  Zosimus  in  the  affair  of  Caelestius,  and  jumped  to 
the  conclusion  that  this  Pontiff  had  certainly  approved  of  a 
heresy, since  he  designated  as  “Catholic”  the  book  contain- 
ing heresy  which  Caelestius  presented  to  him  (3).  Now  the 
bishop  of  Meaux  admits  that  when  Zosimus  interrogated 
Caelestius  as  to  the  letters  of  his  predecessor,  Innocent,  the 
heresiarcli  answered  that  “he  would  condemn  whatever 
the  Holy  See  condemned.”  But  it  is  certain  that  Zosimus 
stamped  Caelestius  as  heretical  in  saying  that  infants  are 
born  without  original  sin ; he  could  not,  therefore,  have  ap- 
proved his  book,  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  acknowledge  the 
existence  of  that  original  sin.  We  must  conclude,  therefore, 
that  when  Zosimus  applied  the  term  “Catholic”  to  the  book 
presented  by  Caelestius,  he  did  so,  not  in  reference  to  its 
contents,  but  because  of  the  promise  to  correct  whatever  the 
Pontiff  should  reject.  “ The  will  to  correct,”  says  Augustine, 
“ not  any  falsity  of  dogma,  was  approved.'*  But  even  if  we 
were  to  grant  that  in  this  matter  Zosimus  fell  into  error,  the 
school  of  Bossuet  could  derive  no  comfort  from  the  con- 
cession, since  the  letter  of  the  Pontiff  to  the  Africans  con- 
tained no  definition  ex  cathedra , nor  indeed  any  definition 
whatever.  St.  Augustine  covers  the  objection  of  Bossuet,  as 
though  he  had  anticipated  it,  when  he  says,  “ Since  this  (the 
error  upon  original  sin)  had  been  placed  in  his  book  by  Cae- 
lestius  among  those  about  which  he  said  he  yet  doubted,  and 
wished  to  be  instructed  upon  ; the  will  to  correct,  not  any 
falsity  of  dogma,  was  approved,  in  a man  of  the  keenest  in- 
tellect, which  would  have  profited  many,  had  it  been  cor- 
rected. Hence  his  book  was  called  Catholic,  because  it  is  the 
part  of  a Catholic  mind,  when  it  deviates  from  the  truth,  not 

(1)  On  Original  Sin , c.  7.  (2)  Against  Julian,  b.  2,  n.  108. 

(8)  Defence  n f the  Declaration , p.  2,  b.  14,  c.  88. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


262 


STUDIES  IN'  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


to  define  the  thing  as  certain,  but  to  reject  it,  if  detected  and 
shown  to  be  false”  (1).  Had  Pope  Zosimus  declared,  as 
Cselestius  in  his  book  affirmed,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  did  not 
descend  to  his  posterity,  different,  indeed,  would  be  the  aspect 
of  affairs.  But,  as  Augustine  triumphantly  asks,  “What 
epistle  of  Pope  Zosimus,  of  venerable  memory,  what  saying 
can  you  find,  in  which  he  taught  that  we  should  believe  man 
to  be  born  without  original  sin  ? Never  did  he  say  such  a 
thing,  never  did  he  write  it.” 

We  cannot  close  this  dissertation  without  alluding  to  some 
of  the  many  writers  whom  Pelagianism  was  the  means  of  ex- 
citing to  the  production  of  some  of  the  most  valuable  monu- 
ments of  theological  lore.  First  comes  St.  Jerome,  whose 
learning  made  Prosper  style  him  “ Teacher  of  the  World/’ 
His  works  on  Pelagianism  are  the  epistles  to  the  tribune 
Marcellinus  and  to  Ctesiphon ; three  books  of  Dialogues;  the 
four  Prefaces  to  his  Commentaries  on  Jeremiah . Orosius,  an 
intimate  friend  of  Jerome  and  Augustine,  having  been  accused 
of  saying  that  “ not  even  with  the  aid  of  God,  can  man  be  free 
from  sin,”  wrote  his  Apology  against  Pdagius , on  Free  Will, 
But  easily  prince  among  all  the  Anti-Pelagians  is  the  great 
St.  Augustine,  who,  says  Prosper,  for  twenty  years  and  more 
combated  the  enemies  of  the  grace  of  God.  His  first  work 
in  this  material  was  the  one  dedicated  to  Marcellinus  on  The 
Remission  of  Sins , composed  in  the  year  412.  In  the  same 
year,  he  wrote  his  Grace  of  the  New  Testament  to  please  his 
friend  Honoratus,  to  whom  he,  in  great  measure,  owed  his  con- 
version from  Manicheism.  This  year  also  came  forth  the 
book  on  The  Spirit  and  the  Letter.  In  413,  Augustine  preached 
his  principal  Sermon  against  the  Pelagians  in  the  chief 
basilica  of  Carthage.  It  is  the  fourteenth  of  the  sermons  on 
the  Words  of  the  Apostles.  In  414,  he  produced  a book  on  the 
Perfection  of  Justice , in  which  he  teaches  that  man  can  avoid 
sin,  when  helped  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  answers  the 
objections  of  Cselestius  taken  from  Scripture.  In  415,  was 
published  the  work  on  Nature  and  Grace , in  answer  to  a book 
in  which  Pelagius  defended  the  nature  of  man  against  God’s 
grace.  In  417,  Augustine  brought  out  a history  of  the 

(1)  To  Boniface . b.  2.  c.  3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PELAGIAXI3M. 


263 


Deeds  of  Pelagius,  and  his  epistle  on  the  Presence  of  God . In 
418,  were  issued  the  epistle  to  Optatus  on  the  Origin  of  the 
Soul , and  the  first  book  on  Nuptials  and  Concupiscence.  Be- 
sides these,  he  produced  a large  number  of  epistles  in  de- 
fence and  explanation  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  grace. 

We  must  not  omit  to  notice  that  large  body  of  men  whoy 
like  the  Semiarians  in  reference  to  the  Arians,  without  involv- ; 
ing  themselves  in  the  condemnation  of  Pelagius,  yet  were 
sufficiently  tainted  with  the  poison  to  be  called  Semipela- 
gians. They  were  thoroughly  orthodox  in  their  doctrine  as 
to  original  sin  and  the  necessity  of  the  grace  of  Christ  for 
its  remission.  Tlieir  fundamental  ^rror  lay  in  denying  the 
necessity  of  divine  grace  for  the  beginning  of  faith,  or  for 
those  first  movements  of  the  will  which  prompt  the  striving 
for  eternal  salvation.  Their  leader  was  John  Cassian,  a monk 
of  uncertain  nationality,  but  who  became  quite  celebrated  for 
sanctity  and  erudition,  and  whose  ascetic  maxims  are  prized 
to  this  day.  He  was  sent  by  St.  Chrysostom  * to  Pope  St* 
Innocent  I.,  when  that  saint  found  it  necessary  to  appeal  to 
Rome,  and  when  he  learned  that  his  holy  patron  had  died 
under  his  torments,  he  went  to  Marseilles,  and  there  founded 
a monastery.  He  wrote  many  works,  and  Semi  pelagian  ism 
is  visible  in  nearly  all.  Nevertheless,  he  died  with  a reputa- 
tion for  sanctity,  and  St.  Gregory  the  Great  congratulates  a 
certain  abbess  in  Marseilles  upon  the  fact  that  her  monas- 
tery is  dedicated  to  St.  Cassian  (1).  The  doctrines  of  Cas- 
sian were  embraced  by  most  of  the  monks  of  Lerins,  and  the 
writings  of  their  abbot  Faust  were  directed  especially  against 
St.  Augustine.  That  Vincent  of  Lerins  and  Hilary  of  Arles 
were  Semipelagians,  seems  more  than  probable  (2).  Christian 
writers  at  this  time,  and  for  about  a century,  were  in  matters 
of  grace,  either  Pelagian,  Semipelagian,  or  Augustinian.  But 
in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  centuiy,  Semipelagiauism  was 
no  longer  tenable  by  a Catholic.  Pope  Gelasius  condemned 
the  books  of  Cassian,  and  Pope  Hornrisdas  those  of  Faust, 
and  in  the  year  529,  the  Synods  of  Valence  and  Orange  con- 
demned the  Semipelagian  doctrines,  receiving  in  the  following 
year  the  confirmation  of  Pope  Boniface  II. 

(1)  Book  fi,  cpixt.  12,  to  the  Abbess  Respecta. 

(2)  Alexandre  : 5t/i  Cent.,  c.  3,  art.  7,  t 6 and  7. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME. 

During  the  Pontificate  of  Pope  Zosiraus,  there  came  to 
Rome  an  African  priest  named  Apiarius,  who  had  been  ex- 
communicated by  his  ordinary,  Urban,  bishop  of  Sicca. 
Appealing  to  the  Pontiff,  although  the  bishops  of  Africa  at 
that  time  contended  that  African  custom  did  not  allow  a 
simple  priest  to  do  so,  he  found  that  his  appeal  was  notTe- 
jectecL  However,  with  the  proverbial  prudence  of  the 
Roman  See,  Pope  Zosimus  acted  in  such  a manner  as  not 
to  unnecessarily  irritate  the  susceptibilities  of  the  African 
prelates,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  did  not  forget  the 
inalienable  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See,  or  the  rights  of 
her  humblest  child.  He  thought  it  best  to  proceed  in  ac- 
cordance with  a decree  which,  in  the  year  418,  had  been 
issued  by  a Carthaginian  synod,  and  which  allowed  the  “ in- 
ferior clergy,”  who  might  feel  themselves  unjustly  treated 
by  their  own  ordinaries,  to  be  judged  by  a Synod  of  the 
provincial  bishops.  He  therefore  sent  to  Africa  three  le- 
gates, Faustin,  bishop  of  Potenza,  and  Philip  and  Asellus, 
priests  of  Holy  Roman  Church,  who  were  instructed  to  in- 
vestigate the  case  of  Apiarius  in  a Synod  composed  of  the 
bishops  of  his  province.  This  legation  ought  not  to  have 
nettled  the  African  prelates,  but  lest  it  might,  the  Pontiff 
instructed  his  legates  to  call  their  attention  to  certain  ec- 
clesiastical canons  which  recognized  the  right  of  Rome  to* 
receive  appeals.  The  cited  canons  were  those  of  Sardica, 
of  which  we  have  spoken  in  chapter  19,  but,  unluckily,  as  it 
proved,  for  the  expediting  of  the  affair  in  hand,  Zosimus 
spoke  of  them  as  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  In  doing 
this,  he  only  followed  the  custom  of  the  Roman  Church, 
which  preserved  the  canons  of  Sardica  in  the  same  codex  and 
under  the  same  title  as  those  of  Nice  (1).  When  the  legates- 

(1)  When  treating  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  we  remarked  that  It  was  generally  regard- 
ed as  a kind  of  appendix  to  that  of  Nice.  Many  of  the  Popes  cited  the  canons  of  Sardica. 

264 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME. 


265 


arrived  in  Africa,  Aurelius  of  Carthage  convoked  a Synod, 
and  quite  a dispute  arose  as  to  the  canons  cited  by  Zosimus. 
They  were  not  found  in  the  African  codices  of  Nice,  and  aa 
for  the  Council  of  Sardica,  the  bishops  seem  to  have  had  no 
remembrance  of  any  such  assemblage,  save  the  infamous 
conciliabulum  of  Philip popolis,  to  which  the  schismatics  had 
fastened  the  date  of  Sardica  (2).  Such  a difference  could 
scarcely  be  expected  to  vanish  immediately,  hence  it  waa 
resolved  to  call  a plenary  Council ; but,  so  great  was  the  re- 
spect of  the  Synod  for  the  Pontifical  wishes,  it  was  resolved 
that,  in  the  meantime,  the  canons  quoted  by  Zosimus  should 
be  obeyed.  On  May  28  of  the  year  419,  the  case  of  Apiar- 
ius,  and  the  accompanying  question  of  appeals,  were  con- 
sidered by  217  bishops  in  the  presence  of  the  Papal  legates. 
We  learn  from  the  Synodical  Epistle,  addressed  to  Pope 
Boniface  I.,  the  successor  of  Zosimus,  that  it  was  decided  to 
restore  Apiarius  to  communion,  but,  as  a measure  of  pru- 
dence, he  was  given  “letters  dimissory,”  and  he  settled  down 
in  the  diocese  of  Tabraca.  As  for  the  canons  cited  by  Pope 
Zosimus,  the  Synod  repeated  what  had  been  already  report- 
ed to  Borne,  namely,  that  those  canons  were  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Nicene  codices  in  use  among  the  Africans.  The 
fathers  therefore  suggested  that  Pope  Boniface  should  in- 
quire as  to  their  genuineness,  in  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Constantinople,  where  the  most  authentic  codices  of  Nice 


as  those  of  Nice.  Thus,  Innocent  I.,  while  quoting  them  to  the  Constantlnopoiitans,  saya 
that  “ only  the  canons  of  Nice  M are  to  be  observed.  Even  St.  Leo  the  Great  spoke  in  a sim- 
ilar manner.  Mark  Anthony  de  Dominis,  the  apostate  archbishop  of  Spalato  (d.  1624),  ac- 
cuses Pope  Zosimus  of  deliberate  forgery  and  imposture  in  this  matter.  When  Hosius  of 
Cordova,  the  papal  legate,  returned  from  the  Council  of  Sardica,  he  brought  its  canons  with 
him.  Just  as  he  had  brought  those  of  Nice  from  that  Synod.  Both  were  preserved  in  the 
Roman  archives  under  the  one  title  of  Nicene.  And  not  only  at  Rome  were  the  two  collec- 
tions united.  To  this  day  Gallic  ct»dlces  are  extant,  in  which  the  two  are  quoted  together 
In  the  time  of  Justinian,  some,  at  least,  of  the  Eastern  codices  must  have  presented  the 
same  union  ; for,  in  his  edict  on  the  Orthodox  Faith,  that  emperor,  after  distinctly  styling 
the  Council  of  Sardica  oecumenical,  numbers  down  to  his  time  only  four  General  Councils, 
thus  showing  that  he  regarded  those  of  Nice  and  Sardica  as  one.  The  reason  why  the 
8ynod  of  Sardica  was  looked  upon  as  an  appendix  to  that  of  Nice,  was  its  having  been  called 
to  establish  what  the  latter  had  constituted,  and  not  for  the  definition  of  any  new  dogma. 
Hosius  was  Papal  legate  to  both  Councils,  and  many  of  the  Nicene  fathers  sat  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Sardica ; hence.  Just  as  the  General  Council  under  Eugenius  IV.  is  called  Florentine, 
although  Its  first  sessions  were  held  at  Ferrara,  so  these  two  Synods  of  Nice  and  Sardica. 
held  by  almost  the  same  prelates  and  for  the  same  object,  were  spoken  of  as  one.  St.  Gregory 
of  Tours  ( History  of  the  Frank s,  h.  9)  cites  as  canons  of  Nice,  the  canons  of  the  Gangren- 
slan  provincial  Synod,  because  it  was  held  about  that  time,  and  under  Hosius.  Thus  also, 
the  Greeks  commonly  attribute  the  Trullan  canons  to  the  Sixth  Council,  because  they  regard- 
ed the  Trullan  Synod  as  an  appendix  to  that  Council. 

(2)  As  for  the  ignorance  of  the  Africans  in  regard  to  the  true  Council  of  Sardica.  see  8t. 
Augustine’s  rpintlr  44  (nr  168),  which  was  written  in  the  year  398,  that  is,  twenty  years  be^ 
fore  the  Papal  legates  cited  the  “ Nicene  canons  ” to  the  prelates  assembled  in  Carthage. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


266 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


were  likely  to  be  found.  Until  answers  should  be  received, 
however,  the  prelates  of  Africa,  they  promised,  would  ob* 
serve  the  instructions  of  Pope  Zosimus.  The  search  among 
the  Oriental  exemplars  of  the  Nicene  records  having  been 
made,  and  no  canons  having  been  found  suclr  as  Zosimus 
had  quoted,  the  African  bishops  mentioned  the  fact  ta 
Pope  Boniface  ; but,  in  the  meantime,  they  did  not  prevent 
appeals  to  Rome,  as  is  seen  in  the  case  of  Lawrence  of 
Icosium  which  is  mentioned  by  St  Augustine,  in  an  epistle 
to  Pope  Cselestine.  Things  remained  in  statu  quo  until 
towards  the  end  of  the  year  425,  when  the  unfortunate 
Apiarius  gave  occasion  for  a renewal  of  the  complaints 
against  “ transmarine  ” appeals.  This  miserable  man  had 
not  profited  by  experience,  and  he  so  conducted  himself  in 
the  diocese  of  Tabraca  that  he  was  again  excommunicated 
Again  he  had  recourse  to  Rome,  and  he  so  well  managed 
his  case  that  Pope  C^elestine,  who  then  occupied  the  chair 
of  Peter,  sent  him  back  to  Africa,  accompanied  by  the  legate 
Faustin  of  Potenza,  who  was  instructed  to  see  that  justice 
was  done  the  apparently  persecuted  priest.  When  Faustin 
appeared  in  Carthage,  he  acted  more  like  a patron  than  a 
judge  towards  Apiarius,  and  the  bishops  of  Africa  became 
more  than  ever  averse  to  the  idea  of  appeals  from  their  de- 
cisions. But  so  far  as  Apiarius  was  concerned,  the  question 
was  soon  ended,  for  when  Aurelius  of  Carthage  had  opened 
the  new  plenary  Council  summoned  for  a reconsideration  of 
the  case,  the  culprit  unexpectedly  avowed  his  crimes,  and 
then,  so  far  as  history  shows,  disappeared  from  the  scene. 
While  yet  influenced  by  the  remembrance  of  the  horrors  of 
which  Apiarius  had  confessed  himself  guilty,  the  Synod  of 
Carthage  addressed  a letter  to  Pope  Cmlestine,  in  which 
they  energetically  complained  of  the  inconveniences  and  even 
disorders  entailed  by  “ transmarine  ” appeals.  We  have 
now  to  look  into  the  nature  and  meaning  of  this  letter,  that 
we  may  see  whether  the  opponents  of  Papal  authority  can 
derive  any  comfort  therefrom.  But  before  we  treat  of  the  » 
letter  itself,  we  must  examine  another  document  which  will 
throw  light  upon  it,  namely,  the  canon  on  appeals  which,  in 
the  year  419,  was  issued  by  the  2nd  Synod  of  Carthage 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME. 


267 


'which  bishop  Aurelius  assembled  ior  the  consideration  of 
this  matter. 

This  canon  had  originally  been  edited  in  the  Synod  of 
418,  and  it  was  in  recognition  of  it  that  Pope  Zosimus  in- 
structed his  legates  to  consider  the  case  of  Apiarius  in  a 
provincial  Synod.  It  reads  as  follows:  “It  was  pleasing, 
that  if  priests,  deacons,  or  other  inferior  clerics,  complain  of 
the  decisions  of  their  bishops  in  any  case,  they  shall  be 
heard  by  the  neighboring  bishops,  with  the  consent  of  the 
ordinary,  and  the  prelates  assigned  by  him  shall  settle  the 
ease.  But  if  they  wish  to  appeal  from  this  judgment,  let 
them  not  have  recourse  to  transmarine  tribunals,  but  to  the 
Primates  of  their  provinces,  or  to  a plenary  Council,  as  has 
frequently  been  ordered  in  regard  to  bishops.  And  let  no 
one  within  the  province  accord  communion  to  him  who  ap- 
peals to  a transmarine  tribunal.”  The  phrase  of  this  can- 
on, “as  has  frequently  been  ordered  in  regard  to  bishops,” 
has  been  rejected  as  not  authentic  by  Orsi  and  Alexandre 
(1).  The  brothers  Ballerini  and  Zaccaria  are  willing  to  re~ 
gard  it  as  a part  of  the  original  canon,  but  it  proves  nothing 
against  the  right  of  Rome  to  receive  episcopal  appeals. 
Where  are  the  decrees  by  which  such  appeals  were  “fre- 
quently ” prohibited?  Not  one  can  be  adduced.  Again,  we 
have  a letter  written  by  Pope  Boniface  to  his  legates,  then 
in  Africa,  under  date  of  the  26  April,  419  (2),  from  which 
we  learn  that  they  had  informed  the  Pontiff  that  all  trouble 
had  vanished.  Now  it  is  very  improbable  that  within  two 
months  the  African  bishops  would  have  again  become  so 
troublesome  as  to  prohibit  episcopal  appeals.  Had  the  le- 
gates not  possessed  good  reason  for  believing  in  their  ac- 
quiescence, they  would  not  have  represented  the  state  of 
affairs  as  calm  and  satisfactory.  Finally,  it  is  not  at  all 
likely  that  a Synod  which  promised,  at  least,  a temporary 
obedience  to  the  canons  cited  by  Zosimus,  would,  at  the 
same  time,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Papal  legates,  deny  a 

(1)  Alexander  gives  the  following  reasons  for  rejecting  the  phrase : It  Is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Bflleviian  canon,  nor  in  the  Collection  of  Cresoonlus.  Again,  no  African  Conciliar? 
canon  can  be  produced,  which  prohibits  appeals  of  bishops  to  Rome.  Also,  the  African 
bishops,  when  they  w’rote  to  Pope  Caplestlne,  offered  every  argument  they  could  excogitate 
Against  appeals,  but  said  nothing  of  any  such  canon.  See  4th  Cent.,  digs.  28,  prop.  3. 

(2)  Mansi  ; Councils  vol  IV.,  col.  481.  amort  ; Catvm  Law , voi.  I. 


Digitized  by  Vjooole 


268 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


right  which  those  canons  conceded.  What  interpretation 
then  is  to  be  given  to  the  canon  in  question  ? A reading, 
by  no  means  forced,  and  the  only  one  which  would  not  be 
contradicted  by  the  history  of  the  time,  is  presented  by  the 
Ballerinis,  Zaccaria,  and  Palma,  which  so  recommends  itself, 
that  it  is  strange  that  any  other  should  have  ever  occurred 
to  any  mind.  The  adversaries  of  the  Papal  authority  un- 
derstand the  canon  as  saying  “ let  them  not  have  recourse 
to  transmarine  tribunals,  as  has  been  ordered  in  regard  to 
bishops  but  the  phrase  “ as  has  been  ordered,  &c.”  should 
be  applied,  in  the  most  natural  manner,  to  the  immediately 
preceding  one,  “but  to  the  Primates  of  their  provinces, 
or  to  a plenary  council.”  The  sense  of  the  canon  would 
therefore  be,  that  priests  should  not  appeal  to  the  Pontiff, 
unless  they  had  previously  had  recourse  to  the  Primate  or 
to  a Council,  in  the  third  instance,  as  had  been  arranged  al- 
ready in  the  case  of  appealing  bishops.  It  must  be  observed 
that  hitherto,  in  conformity  with  the  Synod  of  Hippo 
of  393,  African  priests  were  allowed  to  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  their  own  ordinary  to  that  of  six  neighboring  bish- 
ops, as  a tribunal  of  the  second  instance.  But  as  the  priests 
often  appealed  to  Rome,  in  the  third  instance,  the  African 
prelates  decided  that  for  the  inferior  clergy,  as  well  as  for 
the  superior,  there  should  be  a tribunal  of  the  third  instance 
in  their  own  land,  namely,  that  of  the  Primate  or  of  a 
national  Synod.  Unless  this  is  the  correct  reading  of  the 
Carthaginian  canon,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  ap- 
peals to  Rome  which  we  know  to  have  been  made,  before 
its  promulgation,  by  African  bishops.  When  treating  of 
the  Donatists,  we  had  occasion  to  quote  the  162d  epistle  of 
St.  Augustine,  in  which,  speaking  of  Caecilian  of  Carthage, 
whom  the  Donatists  had  excommunicated,  he  says,  “He 
might  well  ignore  the  multitude  of  his  conspiring  enemies, 
when  he  saw  that  he  was  joined  in  communion  with  the  Roman 
Church,  in  which  always  flourished  the  principality  of  the 
Apostolic  chair,  and  with  the  other  places  whence  the  gos- 
pel came  into  Africa,  where  he  was  ready  to  plead  his  cause 

For  it  was  not  a question  of  priests,  deacons,  or  of 

clergy  of  the  lower  order,  but  of  colleagues,  who  could  re- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME.  269 

serve  tbeir  causes  entire,  for  the  judgment  of  the  other  col- 
leagues, especially  of  the  Apostolic  Churches he  saw 

remaining  to  himself  an  incorruptible  examination  of  his 
cause  by  a transmarine  church,  free  of  private  enmities,  and 
independent  of  each  party  to  the  dispute.”  St.  Augustine 
certainly  was  well  informed  as  to  the  customs  of  the  African 
churches.  We  have  also  the  instance  of  Perrevius,  threat- 
ened with  deposition  by  his  co-provincials,  who  appealed 
to  Pope  Boniface  I.  In  his  letter  to  his  vicar,  Kufus,  whom 
he  appointed  to  investigate  the  case,  the  Pontiff  says,  **  We 
wish  your  Charity  to  carefully  hear  the  case,  calling  together 
the  aforesaid  bishops,  from  whose  persecution  he  (Per- 
revius) says  he  suffers.  Then  let  them  know  that  if  any- 
thing has  been  done  contrary  to  custom,  it  must  be  cancelled ; 
and  having  examined  the  affair,  let  your  Charity  hasten 
to  refer  it  all  to  us,  that  the  judgment  given  by  you  may 
be  confirmed  by  our  sentence.”  The  appeal  of  Anthony, 
bishop  of  Fussala,  made  to  the  same  Pope  Boniface  (1),  is 
also  well  authenticated. 

We  now  return  to  the  letter  which  the  3rd  Synod  of  Car- 
thage sent  to  Pope  Cselestine  after  the  confession  of  Apiarius. 
Eebronius  (2)  says,  This  new  form  of  ecclesiastical  judg- 
ment did  not  altogether  please  the  Africans,  and  in  their 
Synod  of  Carthage,  held  about  the  year  425,  they  wrote  to 
Pope  Cmlestine,  asking  him  not  only  not  to  receive  the 
wicked  appeals  of  priests  and  other  clerics  (which  at  that 
time  were  not  rare),  but  even  not  to  send  any  legates  to  in- 
vestigate the  cases  of  appealing  bishops.”  Nevertheless,  the 
African  bishops  did  not  contest  the  Pontifical  right  to  re- 
ceive appeals.  They  knew  that  the  use  of  such  appeals  had 
been  always  known  in  Africa.  In  the  letter  sent  by  him  to 
Pope  Caelestine,  with  reference  to  Anthony  of  Fussala,  St. 
Augustine  says  : “ There  are  instances  of  some,  who,  on  ac- 
count of  their  crimes,  through  the  judgment  or  confirmation 
of  the  Apostolic  See,  have  not  been  deprived  of  the  epis- 
copal honor,  nor  yet  have  been  entirely  unpunished.  Not 
to  go  in  search  of  the  remote  ones,  I shall  only  mention  the 
more  recent  examples.”  If  the  African  bishops,  with  a 

(1)  Lupus  ; Appeals,  dissert . II.,  c.  21.  (2)  Chap.  5,  § 5. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


270 


STUDIES  IK  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


knowledge  of  this  antiquity  of  the  right  of  appeal,  had 
thought  to  annul  it,  why  simply  beg  the  Pontiff  to  render  a 
less  facile  countenance  to  every  appellant  ? Why  did  they  not 
protest  against  it  as  a usurpation  ? But  they  utter  no  word 
which  can  be  construed  as  a denial  of  the  Papal  preroga- 
tive. They  speak  of  the  distance  from  the  Eternal  City, 
and  hence  the  ease  of  deception;  of  many  other  inconveniences, 
too  manifest  in  the  case  of  Apiarius,  and  hence  combat  the 
exp'uiiency  of  appeals.  If  the  Africans  denied  the  right  of 
appeal,  why,  when  bitterly  complaining  of  the  patronizing 
attitude  of  Faustin  towards  Apiarius,  did  they  not  stamp 
his  action  as  a usurpation  ? Let  us  hear  their  letter  : “ We 
entreat  that  hereafter  you  will  not  so  readily  admit  to  audi- 
ence those  who  go  from  here  to  you,  nor  receive  into  com- 
munion those  whom  we  have  excommunicated  ....  you 
should  guard  against  too  hastily  restoring  to  communion 
those  who  have  been  rejected  in  their  own  province  ....  do 
not  be  willing,  at  the  instance  of  every  petitioner,  to  send  your 
derics  as  executors  of  your  sentences”  (1).  Though  these 
words  betray  a very  strong  sentiment  against  the  expediency 
>f  entertaining  appeals,  they  certainly  acknowledge  the  Pon- 
tifical right  to  receive  them. 

The  African  church  was  certainly  most  hostile  to  appeals 
to  Rome,  and  p'ohibited  them  to  the  inferior  clergy,  in  the 
2nd  and  5th  Carthaginian  and  in  the  Milevitan  Synods.  But 
it  could  not  deny  a right,  which  necessarily  belongs  to  him 
who  was  commanded  to  feed  the  sheep  of  the  Lord,  and  to 
confirm  his  brethren.  After  these  canons  were  passed,  the 
inferior  clerics  continued  to  appeal  to  the  Pontiff,  and  were 
not  repulsed.  Thus,  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (2)  speaks  of 
the  recourse  of  the  deacons  Vincent  and  Felicissimus  at  one 
time,  and  of  the  deacons  Constantius  and  Mustellus  at  an- 
other. The  examples  of  appeals  on  tbe  part  of  the  in- 
ferior clergy  of  other  regions  are,  however,  much  more  fre- 
quent. The  clerics  of  Constantinople,  who  were  degraded  by 
Nestorius.  appealed  to  Pope  Cnelestine,  and  were  restored. 
The  same  happened  with  iEtius  the  archdeacon,  and  the 

vl)  Epixt.  Rom.  Pont.,  vol.  1. 

i'Z)  rpixl.  82 : Book  II.,  epist.  88 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME.  271 


monk  Eutyches,  appealing  to  St.  Leo.  To  this  Poutiff  also 
appealed  many  Alexandrian  clerics,  from  the  persecutions 
of  Dioscorus.  From  Gaul  also  there  came  appeals  to  St. 
Leo.  The  priests  Savinian  and  Leo  had  recourse  to  his  tri- 
bunal after  their  degradation  by  Rusticus  of  Narbonne- 
Tuentius  besought  the  protection  of  Pope  Zosimus  against  ^ 
the  vexations  of  Proculus  of  Marseilles.  The  clerics  of  Arles 
appealed  to  Pelagius  I against  Sapandus.  In  fhe,  the  ( pie- 
ties of  Zosimus,  St.  Leo,  Pelagius  I.,  and  St.  Gregory  I , show 
that  the  inferior  clergy  frequently  had  recourse  for  justice 
to  the  Holy  See,  sometimes  even  in  the  first  instance  (1). 
We  would  here  notice  a remark  of  the  famous  Abp.  Da  Marca, 
to  the  effect  that  Pope  Zosimus  claimed  the  right  of  receiv- 
ing episcopal  appeals,  only  because  the  emperors  Arcadius 
and  Honorius  had  resigned  the  right  of  issuing  imperial  re- 
scripts for  the  revision  of  such  cases.  Let  the  reader  note 
the  following  words  of  the  Pontiff  to  the  fathers  of  Carthage, 
and  he  will  find  that  the  right  was  claimed  as  derived  from 
the  canons,  from  tradition,  and  from  Christ : “Although  the 
tradition  of  the  fathers  has  given  such  authority  to  the 
Apostolic  See,  that  no  one  can  dare  to  differ  from  its  decis- 
ion, and  has  preserved  that  authority  by  the  canons  and  laws, 
and  the  current  discipline  shows  by  its  rules  the  reverence 
it  feels  for  the  name  of  Peter,  from  which  it  itself  comes 
down  ; for  canonical  antiquity,  by  unanimous  consent,  has 
held  the  power  of  this  apostle  to  be  so  great,  from  the 
promise  of  Christ  our  God,  that  he  can  bind  what  is  loosed 
and  loose  what  is  bound,  the  same  power  being  given  to  him 

who  holds  the  authority  of  the  See Since,  therefore, 

Peter  is  possessed  of  such  authority,  and  the  studies  of  our 
forefathers  have  established  that  by  both  human  and  divine 
law  is  strengthened  the  Roman  Church,  which,  in  the  place  of 
Peter,  we  rule  with'  the  power  of  his  name,  as  you  know,  dear 
brethren,  and  as  priests  ought  to  know  ; when  we  possess  | 

such  authority,  that  no  one  can  reject  our  decisions, 

wo  wish  to  consider  the  case  of  him  who  has  been  accused 
among  you,  as  your  own  letters  sav,  and  who,  declaring  him- 
self innocent,  has  appealed  to  our  See.” 

(1)  Kon<  vm.ia  ; /» irwj.  /.,  i'i  note  to  Alexandre ’«  Di#s.  ‘<J8,  4 Ih  Cent. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


272 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


We  have  hitherto  allowed  it  to  be  taken  for  granted  that 
the  Council  of  Carthage  prohibited,  in  some  way  or  another, 
or  unless  made  under  some  certain  conditions,  appeals  to  the 
Homan  See.  But  the  canon  adduced  by  our  adversaries  by 
no  means  compels  us  to  this  admission.  When  the  African 
prelates  forbade  recourse  to  transmarine  tribunals,  it  is  not 
certain  that  they  intended  to  include  appeals  to  Rome  in  the 
prohibition  ; indeed,  the  contrary  is  more  than  insinuated  in 
the  same  canon  as  cited  by  Gratian,  coma  //.,  quest.  VI,  for, 
immediately  after  the  excommunicatory  clause,  we  there 
read  the  exception:  “ Unless  he  appealed  to  the  Roman 
See.”  That  is,  Gratian  expressly  mentions  that  exception 
which,  in  all  canons  of  this  nature,  Innocent  I.  declares  to  be 
understood.  This  Pontiff,  alluding  to  the  canons  of  Sardica 
(which  he  calls  Nicene),  says  “It  is  permitted  to  no  one — 
without  prejudice,  however,  of  the  Roman  Church,  which 
must  be  rQvered.  in  all  causes — to  leave  the  clergy  who,  by 
the  Providence  of  God,  govern  the  Church  in  the  same  prov- 
ince, and  to  recur  to  other  provinces  ” (1).  Unless  this 
general  rule  of  excepting  the  Roman  See,  in  all  such  pro- 
hibitory canons,  had  been  kept  in  mind  by  the  African  bish- 
ops, the  legate  Faustin  would  certainly  have  asserted  the 
privileges  of  that  See,  as  we  know  he  was  accustomed  to  do. 
The  authors  of  this  canon  would  scarcely  have  applied  the 
common  and  indefinite  adjective  transmarine  to  that  Church 
which  they  recognized  as  the  mother  of  all.  Nor  did  they 
complain  of  any  violation  of  their  canon,  when  Apiarius  ap- 
pealed to  Rome  the  second  time,  and  Faustin  was  sent  to  his 
assistance.  That  they  would  have  complained,  had  their  in- 
tentions been  disregarded  or  contemned,  is  to  be  supposed, 
when  we  consider  the  bitterness  which,  throughout  the  con- 
troversy, they  otherwise  manifested.  Even  when  the  con- 
fession of  his  crimes,  on  the  part  of  Apiarius,  had  demon- 
strated how  justly  they  had  condemned  him,  they  did  not 
dare  ask  the  Pontiff  not  to  receive  any  more  appeals.  They 
merely  besought  that  such  appeals  should  not  be  very  easily 
entertained:  “We  earnestly  entreat  that  you  will  not  very 
easily  listen  to  those  who  go  hence  ; and  that  you  will  not 

(1)  Epistle  to  Victricius. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


OONTBOYEBSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME.  273 


accord  communion  to  those  who  have  been  excommunicated 
by  us."  Aurelius  of  Carthage  had  a chief  part  in  the  forma- 
tion and  promulgation  of  the  canon  under  consideration,  and 
certainly  he  must  be  regarded  as  an  excellent  interpreter  of 
its  significance.  Well,  in  his  Synodical  Letter,  written  to 
tope  C»lestine  a few  years  later,  he  plainly  acknowledges 
the  right  of  the  Pontiff  to  revise  the  causes  of  priests  already 
judged  in  Africa. 

It  has  been  urged  that,  from  its  very  infancy,  the  African 
church  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  giving  definitive  judgment 
in  the  causes  of  her  priests  and  deacons  ; that  this  privilege 
was  not  abolished  before  the  time  of  Si  Gregory  the  Great, 
into  whose  hands  the  Africans  renounced  it.  Naturally  then, 
it  is  objected,  we  must  suppose  that,  in  the  formation  of  the 
Carthaginian  canon,  the  African  prelates  designed  to  include 
the  Roman  See  among  the  “ transmarine  ” to  whom  appeal 
was  to  be  illicit.  That  the  African  churches  enjoyed  the 
privilege  alleged,  is  well  proven  by  many  testimonies,  but, 
before  a conclusion  can  be  reached  in  the  matter  in  question, 
we  should  understand  the  precise  nature  of  the  privilege. 
The  Roman  Pontiff,  in  his  capacity  of  Patriarch  of  the  West, 
had  the  power  to  relax  the  immediate  dependence  of  the 
Western  churches  upon  his  patriarchal  see ; to  remit,  as  oc- 
casion demanded,  the  right  of  receiving  appeals  which  all 
the  patriarchs  possessed  in  regard  to  their  subject  provinces. 
But  the  Roman  See  must  be  considered  from  a point  of  view 
different  from  that  from  which  we  regard  Alexandria,  Anti- 
och, and  Jerusalem  ; at  Rome  there  is  another  chair  besides 
the  patriarchal  throne,  viz.,  the  chair  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff 
of  the  Universal  Church.  To  abrogate  the  essential  rights 
of  this  chair  of  Peter,  is  not  within  the  power,  even  of 
Peter’s  successor  (1). 

Before  closing  this  chapter,  we  would  draw  the  reader  s 
attention  to  the  valuable  essay  of  Mark  Anthony  Cappello, 
which  is  one  of  the  best  ever  written  upon  this  subject. 

(1)  Our  adversaries  admit  that  this  African  custom  was  a privilege.  A privilege  does  not 
destroy  the  right  of  him  who  accords  It,  but  rather,  by  its  very  exercise,  demonstrates  the 
superiority  of  the  giver.  As  CappeUo  well  observes,  this  African  privilege  may  be  compared 
to  the  honor  accorded  by  the  Roman  emperors  to  the  Prefects  of  the  Pretorium,  “ from  whose 
decisions  no  one  could  ever  appeal ; ” which  honor,  however,  did  not  render  the  Prefect  in- 
dependent of  the  imperial  authority. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


274 


STUDIE8  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


This  Franciscan  controversialist,  incited  by  the  carpings 
of  the  apostate  De  Dominis,  who  had  exchanged  his  arch- 
iepiscopal  see  of  Spalato  for  the  Anglican  deanery  of  Wind- 
sor, and  had  issued  a most  bitter  diatribe  on  the  Holy  See 
(1 ),  published,  in  1622,  a “ Dissertation  on  the  Appeals  of 
the  African  Church  to  the  Roman  See.”  In  this,  the  first 
edition  of  his  work,  Cappello  rejected  as  spurious  the  epis- 
tles of  Pope  Zosiinus  to  the  African  bishops,  in  which  the 
Pontiff  is  disposed  to  be  lenient  towards  Pelagius,and  Csb- 
lestius,  on  account  of  their  simulated  docility.  He  also  de- 
nied the  authenticity  of  the  Synodal  Letters  of  the  6th  Car- 
thaginian Synod  to  Popes  Boniface  and  Cielestine,  and  threw 
doubt  over  the  entire  history  of  Apiarius.  Nor  was  Cap- 
pello entirely  alone  in  this  view  of  the  subject.  The  il- 
lustrious cardinal  Du  Perron,  who  wrote  about  the  same 
time  (2),  thought  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  letters  to 
Boniface  and  Cmlestine  could  not  l>e  reached,  unless  through 
the  Greek  version  ; that  the  Collection  of  Canons,  attributed 
to  the  Carthaginian  Synod,  was  the  rhapsody  of  some  pri- 
vate individual.  Even  the  erudite  and  critical  Christian 
Lupus  said  of  Cappello  s opinion,  that  though  he  “ would 
not  dare  follow  it,  yet  it  is  not  without  foundation,  nor  are 
tlie  arguments  of  the  learned  author  frivolous  ” (3).  But 
the  theory  of  Cappello  was  soon  found  to  be  untenable, 
owing  to  the  authority  of  the  Henman  Facundus,  first  pub- 
lished, in  1629,  by  Sirmond ; and  by  that  of  the  Common - 
itory  of  Mercator,  edited  first  by  Labbe,  in  1671.  Cappello 
himself,  in  the  last  years  of  his  life,  met  the  Vatican  apo- 
graph, which  Sirmond  afterwards  gave  to  the  light,  and  was 
led  to  reconsider  his  views.  Accordingly,  after  much  inves- 
tigation, especially  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine,  Cappello 
prepared  a new  edition  of  his  work,  in  which  he  accepted 
as  genuine  both  the  canons  of  Carthage  and  the  epistles  of 
Zosiinus  and  the  African  fathers.  The  volume,  however,  did 
not  see  the  light  until  the  year  1722,  when  it  was  published 
by  order  of  Pope  Clement  XI  , into  whose  hands,  when  a 
youth,  the  MSS.  had  been  given.  Modern  critics  have  ap- 

(1)  7 he  Eccti'Khfrt  inti  lie public. 

lit  jihf  to  (hr  litsfHinxt  nt  tin  Kuajof  Gunt 

(3)  Homan  Appeal *,  d i.«.  2,  c.  30. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  ON  AFRICAN  APPEALS  TO  ROME.  275 

proved  of  many  of  Cappello’s  judgments  in  matters  of  their 
special  province.  In  Chap.  II.  of  the  dissertation  now  be- 
fore us,  he  proves,  against  the  author  of  the  common  Col- 
lection of  Canons,  and  against  Baronio,  that  the  canon  on 
African  appeals  was  not  a canon  of  Milevi,  but  of  Carthage  ; 
and  this  opinion  has  been  followed  by  Noris,  Pagi,  and  Til- 
lemont.  “The  proceedings,”  he  says  (1),  “of  the  ancient 
Council  of  Africa  have  come  down  to  us  enshrouded  in  such 
darkness,  that  they  cannot  be  restored  to  their  native  integ- 
rity without  immense  labor  ; and  unless  they  are  restored  it  is- 
impossible  to  form  a correct  judgment  as  to  the  things  done  in 
that  church.  Take,  as  an  example,  the  canon  on  appeals  ta 
‘ transmarine  ’ sees,  which  had  for  its  author,  one  or  another 
.Council,  as  I shall  show;  but  which  has  been  attributed  to 
four,  i.  e.,  to  two  of  Milevi  and  to  two  of  Carthage.  If  it  was  en- 
acted in  either  one  of  the  Milevitan  Synods,  then  the  Roman 
Pontiff  was  either  unwdlling,  or  ignorant  of  its  issue.  But  if  it 
was  passed  in  either  one  of  the  Carthaginian  Councils,  not 
so ; for  whatever  was  done  therein,  was  done  with  the  approv- 
al, and  by  order  of,  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Since,  therefore,  the 
very  essence  of  this  difficulty  depends  upon  a knowledge  of 
the  authorship  of  the  canon,  we  must  investigate  the  matter 
as  diligently  and  as  accurately  as  possible.’’  Cappello  then 
proves  that  the  canon  on  “ transmarine’’  appeals  vras  not  ed- 
ited by  either  of  the  Synods  of  Milevi  which  were  held  during 
the  reign  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  (there  were  only  two);  not  by 
the  first,  for  no  such  canon  is  found  ascribed  to  it  in  the  Codex 
of  African  Canons  ; not  by  the  second,  because  that  Synod 
was  merely  provincial,  and  only  ?,  national  and  plenary  Coun- 
cil could  issue  a decree  like  the  “ transmarine  ” canon,, 
which  affected  the  whole  African  church.  It  was  issued, 
therefore,  by  a Council  of  Carthage,  and  as  we  know  it  first 
saw  the  light  in  the  12th  Consulate  of  Honorius  and  the 
8th  of  Theodosius,  it  follows  that  it  was  enacted  by  the  plen- 
ary Council  held  in  418,  and  repeated  in  the  following 
year  in  the  sixth,  also  plenary,  Synod.  But  since  both  these 
Synods  w7ere  held  under  the  auspices  and  express  approba- 
tion of  Rome,  it  follows  that  none  of  their  canons  could  have 

(l)  A inject  l*  uf  the  A /nV  m /,'n/rrft,  c.  II. * n.  I. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


276 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


been  intended  to  curtail  the  Roman  authority.  Therefore 
the  famous  “ transmarine”  canon  was  directed,  not  against  ap- 
peals to  the  mother  See,  but  against  recourse  to  the  arbitra- 
tion of  other  “transmarine”  churches,  e.  g.,  of  Milai^,  or  of 
Arles,  to  which  sees  African  disputes  were  frequently  re- 
ferred (1). 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

NE8T0RIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OP  EPHESUS. 


Nestorius,  by  birth  a Syrian,  at  first  a monk,  and  then  a 
priest  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  was  appointed  by  Theodosius 
to  the  see  of  Constantinople  in  the  year  427.  He  had 
scarcely  received  the  episcopal  consecration,  when  his  true 
character  commenced  to  reveal  itself.  Animated,  says  Soc- 
rates, by  a tempestuous  audacity,  and  by  an  ardent  desire 
of  fame,  rather  than  by  a true  zeal  for  the  faith,  he  made 
this  eruption  in  his  oration  to  the  emperor  : 4*  Give  me  the 
earth,  O emperor,  purged  of, heretics,  and  I will  give 
heaven  to  thee.  Aid  me  in  the  destruction  of  heretics, 
and  I will  aid  thee  in  destroying  the  Persians.”  He  com- 
menced at  once  a most  bitter  war  against  almost  every  kind 
of  error,  as  though,  says  Vincent  of  Lerins,  he  wished  to 
prepare  an  open  way  for  his  own.  With  his  own  hands  he 
once  applied  the  torch  to  an  Arian  temple,  and  as  a devastat- 
ing fire  ensued  which  for  a while  threatened  the  entire  capi- 
tal, the  indignant  populace  began  to  style  him  a “ fire-bug.” 
We  have  said  that  he  was  bitter  against  almost  every  error, 
for  he  rather  favored  Pelagianism,  as  we  gather  from  a 
letter  of  Pope  Cselestine  written  in  response  to  one  of 
Nestorius  interceding  for  the  Pelagians  of  Constantinople. 

(1)  History  furnishes  several  instances  of  arbitration  in  African  causes  by  the  churches  of 
Milan  and  Arles.  The  reason  for  this  action  is  as  follows:  In  the  Council  of  Sardica,  at 
which  Gratus  of  Carto  ige  anti  thiriy-dve  other  African  prelates  were  present,  it  was  enacted, 
( 'tic.  XIV.,  that  a condemned  cleric  “ had  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  bishop  of  the  metropolis 
-of  the  same  province ; ami  if  there  were  no  metropolitan,  he  could  recur  to  a neighboring 
metropolitan,  and  request  him  to  examine  into  the  affair.”  Now  in  the  African  provinces 
there  were  no  regular  metropolitans,  their  office  being  filled  by  the  senior  bishops,  no  matter 
of  what  sees  they  were  the  prelates.  Hence  grew  the  custom  of  recurring  to  the  metropolitan 
of  Milan  or  of  Arles. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


NESTORIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  277 

But  his  own  pet  crop  showed  itself  in  the  very  first  year  of 
his  episcopate.  His  primary  errors  were  two.  First,  he 
contended  that  the  Man  formed  in  xthe  womb  of  Mary  was 
other  than  the  Word  of  God ; that  the  Incarnation  was  simply 
a dwelling  of  the  Word  in  man  as  in  a temple,  so  that 
God  was  not  born,  and  did  not  suffer  and  die ; that  Christ 
therefore  was  not  God,  but  only  the  Temple  of  God.  His 
second  error  was  in  styling  the  Blessed  Virgin,  not  Theotikos , 
“ Mother  of  God/’  but  Christotokos , “ Mother  of  Christ.” 
His  earliest  lieutenants  were  a bishop  named  Dorotheus  and 
a priest  called  Anastasius,  who  opened  the  compaign  by 
anathematizing  all  who  designated  Mary  as  Mother  of  God, 
Nestorius  being  at  the  time  of  the  outburst  seated  on  his 
episcopal  throne.  The  congregation  were  horrified  at  the 
blasphemy,  and  a certain  simple  monk  openly  contradicted 
it,  and  attempted  to  put  Anastasius  out  of  the  sacred  build- 
ing. But  by  order  of  Nestorius  the  zealous  man  was  pub- 
licly flogged,  and  sent  into  exile  (1).  The  greater  part  of 
the  people  now  began  to  absent  themselves  from  church, 
lest  they  should  communicate  with  heretics.  Many  priests 
attempted  in  their  sermons  to  check  the  spread  of  the  con- 
tagion, but  the  threats  of  their  bishop  kept  too  many  silent. 
In  the  meantime,  the  false  shepherd  was  indefatigable  in 
his  preaching,  and  soon  the  faithful  lamented  that  “ an  em- 
peror we  have,  but  no  bishop”  (2).  Like  many  heresi- 
archs,  Nestorius  found  a valuable  ally  in  his  nefarious  work 
in  his  external  appearance.  The  mortification  of  abstinence 
seemed  to  shine  forth  from  his  pallid  features  and  his  deli- 
cate frame  ; grave  thoughts  had  impressed  a solemn  seal 
upon  his  intellectual  brow  ; a certain  modest  sadness,  which 
is  not  without  a charm,  especially  for  the  fair,  pervaded 
his  gestures.  His  clothes  bore  the  marks  of  long  usage ; 
he  certainly  loved  books,  and  he  claimed  to  love  solitude. 
With  these  advantages,  and  an  eloquence  greatly  admired, 
his  forte  lay  in  preaching.  But  there  were  not  wanting  in 
the  capital  able  defenders  of  the  truth.  A distinguished 
Attorney  named  Eusebius  (afterwards  bishop  of  Doryloeum) 

(1)  See  the  Supplication  to  the  Emperor  of  the  monks  of  Constantinople,  extant  In  the 
Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  p.  l,  c.  80. 

(3)  Ibt, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


278 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


challenged  the  prelate  to  a public  dispute,  and  Proclus* 
newly  consecrated  as  bishop  of  Cyzicus,  delivered  an  ad- 
mirable panegyric  on  the  Mother  of  God  before  an  immense 
audience  of  all  classes  of  society.  To  this  latter  Nestorius 
responded  immediately  by  an  extemporaneous  oration,  and 
afterwards  in  three  set  setmons.  Before  long  he  published 
his  treatise  on  the  Incarnation , and  several  Homilies , which 
he  took  care  to  send  as  feelers  into  Egypt.  It  was  owing  to 
this  importation  among  his  people  that  St.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria wrote  his  Epistle  to  Monks , which  work  so  excited  the 
angry  fears  of  the  heretic  that  he  laid  before  Theodosius  an 
accusation  of  treason  against  the  saint  (1).  The  two  prelates 
now  interchanged  letters ; Cyril  breathing  the  spirit  of 
charity  towards  his  adversary  and  that  of  chivalrous  devo- 
tion towards  Mary,  and  Nestorius  lamenting  the  “ intem- 
perance and  injustice”  of  the  Alexandrian  prelate.  A further 
correspondence  soon  ensued,  in  which  Nestorius  plainly 
betrayed  his  arrogance  and  vanity,  while  he  in  the  clearest 
terms  announced  his  lieresy.  While  these  letters  were 
passing  between  Constantinople  and  Alexandria,  Nestorius 
wrote  twice  to  Pope  Cielestine.  St.  Cyril  also  addressed 
the  Pontiff  concerning  the  new  doctrine,  because,  he  says, 
“ the  ancient  custom  of  the  churches  requires  that  such 
things  be  communicated  to  your  Holiness.”  He  then  pro- 
ceeds as  follows  : “ We  would  not  openly  break  our  com- 
munion with  him,  before  we  had  informed  you  of  these 
things.  Deign,  therefore,  to  tell  us  what  you  think,  that  it 
may  be  clear  to  us  whether  we  ought  to  communicate  with 
him,  or  rather  freely  announce  to  him  that  no  one  can  com- 
municate with  him  who  favors  and  teaches  this  erroneous 
doctrine.  Further,  the  mind  of  your  Integrity  upon  this 
matter  ought  to  be  made  clearly  known  by  letter  to  the 
devout  bishops  of  Macedonia,  and  to  all  the  bishops  of  the 

East that  with  one  soul  we  may  all  persist  in  one 

doctrine,  and  give  help  to  the  true  faith  which  is  now  at- 
tacked.’ Among  other  writings  which  St.  Cyril  produced 
about  this  period  was  a letter  to  Acacius  of  Beroe,  to  which 
he  received  a reply  full  of  praise  for  his  zeal,  but  full,  also, 

d<  v Ki'. ; .1  >jtt  in  i it'i-'  .<n it. 


Digitized  by  UjOOQle 


NESTORIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS. 


<79 


of  excuses  for  Nestorius,  as  for  one  guilty  only  of  a slip  of 
the  tongue. 

When  Pope  Caelestine  had  read  the  letters  of  Cyril  and 
of  Nestorius,  he  held  a Synod  of  such  bishops  as  were 
then  in  the  Eternal  City,  in  August,  430.  Sentence  of  ex- 
communication  and  deposition  was  pronounced  against 
Nestorius  unless  within  ten  days  from  notification  he  re- 
nounced his  errors,  in  an  open  and  written  confession.  All 
whom  Nestorius  had  wickedly  deprived  of  communion  were 
restored  to  it ; the  Pelagians  whom  he  had  restored,  were 
recondemned.  Seven  epistles  were  sent  by  the  Pontiff, 
One  was  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  that  he  would  represent 
the  Holy  See  in  the  cause  of  Nestorius,  and  in  providing 
for  the  see  of  Constantinople.  Another  was  to  Nestorius, 
urging  him  to  return  to  his  right  mind.  A third  was 
directed  to  the  Constantinopolitan  clergy,  encouraging  them 
to  persevere  in  the  faith.  The  others  were  to  John  of  An- 
tiocli,  Rufus  of  Thessalonica,  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem,  and 
Flavian  of  Philippi,  begging  them,  as  bishops  of  the  next 
greatest  sees  of  the  Orient,  to  labor  energetically  in  the 
cause  of  truth.  In  the  month  of  November,  St.  Cyril  pro- 
ceeded to  carry  out  the  orders  of  the  Holy  See.  All  the 
bishops  of  Egypt  were  assembled  in  a Synod  at  Alexandria, 
and  a Synodical  Epistle  sent  to  Nestorius  by  the  hands  of 
four  legates.  In  this  letter,  the  heresiarch  is  officially  in- 
formed of  the  sentence  pronounced  by  the  Pope  against 
him  ; he  is  notified  that  the  Synod  communicates  with  all 
those  whom  he  has  excommunicated  for  their  fidelity  ; he 
is  ordered  to  publicly,  and  in  writing,  reject  his  heresies ; 
he  is  furnished  with  a Profession  of  Faith,  and  with  twelve 
Anathematisms , written  by  Cyril,  to  whicli  he  is  required 
to  subscribe.  But  Nestorius  was  far,  indeed,  on  the  road  to 
perdition.  Instead  of  obeying,  he  at  once  issued  twelve 
counter  Anathematisms , each  one  a blasphemous  contradic- 
tion to  a corresponding  one  of  Cyril.  He  declared  the 
Alexandrian  Anathematisms  infested  with  Apollinarism. 
He  at  once,  after  the  usual  style  of  heresiarchs,  proceeded 
to  secure  the  help  of  the  government,  filling  the  ears  of 
Theodosius  with  calumnies  as  to  Cyril's  fidelity  to  Pul- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


280 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


cheria  (1),  and  alleging  that  when  Cyril  had  dedicated  his 
book  on  The  Right  Faith  to  the  emperor,  he  dedicated  a 
similar  one  to  his  imperial  sister,  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing her  aid  against  Theodosius,  should  he  prove  averse  to 
him.  In  the  meantime,  letters  were  sent  to  the  greater 
sees  throughout  the  world,  giving  notice  of  an  (Ecumenical 
Council,  to  be  held  at  Ephesus  on  the  Pentecost  day  of  the 
year  431.  When  the  eventful  day  arrived,  there  came  to 
Ephesus,  on  the  part  of  the  emperor,  a certain  courtier,  Count 
Candidian  by  name,  with  orders  to  expel  from  the  city  all 
the  monks  and  foreign  seculars,  lest  they  should  interfere 
with  the  liberty  of  the  bishops.  He  was  instructed  also  ta 
allow  no  bishop  to  leave  before  the  end  of  the  Synod,  but 
was  prohibited  from  intruding  in  any  way  upon  the  proper 
business  of  the  Council.  Nestorius  arrived,  accompanied 
by  twelve  of  his  episcopal  partisans.  Marius  Mercator  puts- 
the  number  of  attending  bishops  at  274,  but  the  best 
authorities  fix  it  at  218.  In  the  beginning  of  the  Council, 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  presided  in  the  name  of  Pope  Cseles- 
tine  ; the  other  legates,  the  bishops  Arcadius  and  Projectus, 
and  the  priest  Philip,  being  delayed  on  their  journey  until 
the  second  Action , on  the. 10th  of  July. 

Although  fixed  for  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  fathers  wait- 
ed sixteen  days  for  the  coming  of  John  of  Antioch,  but 
finally  they  opened  their  sessions  in  St.  Mary's  church  on 
the  22nd  of  June.  In  the  first  Action , were  read  the  Nicene 
Creed,  the  2d  epistle  of  Cyril  to  Nestorius,  the  epistle  of 
Pope  Cselestine  to  the  same,  and  the  Synodical  Letter  of 
Alexandria.  Also  was  read,  and  declared  heretical,  the 
epistle  of  Nestorius  to  Cyril  commencing,  “ The  contumelies 
of  your  wonderful  letters,  &e.”  The  testimony  of  the  legates 
whom  Cyril  had  sent  to  Nestorius  was  then  taken,  to  the 
effect  that  lie  had  not  complied  with  the  demands  of  the 
Pope.  Theodotus  of  Ancyra,  and  Acacius  of  Melitus,  also 
swore  to  having  heard  blasphemies  from  the  mouth  of  Nesto- 
rius. Many  extracts  from  various  writings  of  the  heresiarch 

0)  During  the  minority  of  Theodosius  II,,  the  empire  was  governed  by  his  elder  sister, 
Pulclieria,  a woman  of  heroic  virtue,  and  now  honored  by  the  Church  as  a saint.  Through- 
out his  reign,  she  had  great  Influence  over  him  for  his  own  and  the  people’s  good,  but  he 
often  chafed  under  what  his  eunuchs,  whom  he  too  often  consulted,  termed  a yoke. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


NE8T0RIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  281 

were  also  presented  to  the  Council,  all  manifestly  heretical. 
Then  the  Synod  pronounced  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion and  deposition  against  Nestorius,  “ compelled  by  the 
sacred  canons,  and  by  the  Epistle  of  the  Most  Holy  Father 
and  Co-minister,  Cselestine,  Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church.” 
This  sentence  was  inscribed  “ To  Nestorius,  the  New  Judas/ 
and  was  sent  to  him.  Theodosius,  deceived  by  Count  Can- 
didian,  who  intercepted  the  Synodical  Relation  to  the  Emperor , 
now  sent  a rescript  to  the  Council,  declaring  the  proceedings 
defective  (1),  but  the  Council  seems  to  have  paid  it  no  atten- 
tion. In  the  second  Action , the  legates  Arcadius,  Projectus, 
and  Philip,  having  arrived,  the  letter  of  Pope  Caelestine  to- 
the  Synod  was  read,  the  fathers  acclaiming  Cselestine  as 
“ the  new  Paul,”  the  “ Guardian  of  the  Faith,”  <fcc.  The 
legates  then  demanded  that  they  should  be  informed  of  what 
had  been  already  done,  but  this  was  postponed  until  the 
next  session.  In  the  third  Action , the  proceedings  already 
held  in  the  cause  of  Nestorius  were  read,  and  approved  of 
by  the  Papal  legates.  A Relation  was  then  sent  to  the  em- 
peror, informing  him  that  the  Pontifical  legates  had  con- 
firmed the  deposition  of  the  heresiarch,  and  requesting 
permission  for  the  Synodals  to  leave  Ephesus.  In  the  fourth 
Action , as  St.  Cyril  and  Memnon  presented  a complaint 
against  John  of  Antioch  and  his  conciliabulars,  for  their 
pretended  deposition  of  the  complainants,  the  Council  sent 
three  bishops  to  John’s  residence  to  cite  him  before  it.  The 
summoners  returned,  reporting  that  they  had  been  disrespect- 
fully repelled  by  the  guards,  whereupon  the  fathers  decreed 
Joints  action  against  Cyril  and  Memnon  null  and  void.  In 
the  fifth  Action , Cyril  demanded  that  the  bishop  of  Antioch, 
should  be  forced  to  prove  all  his  charges  against  the  Alex- 
andrian prelate,  or  be  punished  for  calumny.  Then  John  was 
again  thrice  cited  to  appear,  and  as  he  persisted  in  his  obsti- 
nacy, sentence  of  excommunication  was  pronounced  against 
him  and  his  followers  (2).  In  the  sixth  Action , the  fathers 

(1)  John  of  Antioch  had  already,  immediately  upon  his  arrival  at  Ephesus,  before  proceeding 
to  the  Council,  surrounded  himself  with  43  bishops  at  his  residence,  and  caused  them  to  sign 
a decree  of  deposition  against  St.  Cyril  and  against  Memnon  of  Ephesus,  as  guilty,  the  first 
of  Apolllnarism,  the  second  of  usurpation.  He  also  threatened  the  other  fathere  with  ex- 
communication, unless,  by  a certain  day,  they  joined  his  “ Synod.”  He  then  sent  a Relation- 
of  his  proceedings  to  Theodosius,  and  remained  at  the  head  of  Ms  partisans. 

(2)  Liberatus,  speaking  of  this  condemnation  of  John  of  Antioch,  says:  **  Therefore,  Cyril 


Digitized  by  doodle 


282 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


condemned  the  wicked  Symbol  of  Theodore  of  Mopsueste,  of 
whom  we  shall  hear  more  when  treating  of  the  Controversy 
of  the  Three  Chapters.  The  remaining  Actions  were  devoted 
to  cases  of  discipline  respecting  particular  dioceses. 

The  office  of  * protector  of  the  Church,”  of  “external 
bishop/  of  ‘executor  of  the  canons,”  &c.,  which  the  Roman 
Christian  emperors,  with  the  willing  consent  of  the  Popes, 
exercised  in  the  early  ages,  was  sometimes  productive  of 
serious  evil.  These  sovereigns  did  not  always  observe,  if 
indeed  they  always  kpew,  the  line  of  demarcation  which 
separates  the  province  of  a protector  from  that  of  a ruler. 
And  not  unfrequently,  the  ignorance  of  theology  and  of 
most  ecclesiastical  matters,  which  must,  almost  from  the 
nature  of  things,  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  equipments  of 
a more  or  less  military  autocrat,  rendered  the  emperor  a 
facile  tool  in  the  hands  of  ambitious  churchmen  and  of 
theologistic  courtiers.  Theodosius  the  Younger  was  styled 
by  the  authors  of  his  day  “ a most  religious  man,”  and  yet 
he  was  sometimes  led  to  exceed  his  authority,  and  to  cause 
much  trouble  to  the  Church,  though  he  wished  to  protect  her. 
While  his  imperial  mind  was  yet  perplexed  by  the  contrary 
Relation s of  the  Ephesine  Council  and  of  the  conciliabulars 
of  John  of  Antioch,  the  fathers  of  the  Synod  thought  best 
to  send  him  embassadors  who  would  explain  to  him  the 
true  state  of  affairs.  But  three  days  before  these  arrived  at 
Constantinople,  the  Count  Irenaeus,  a friend  of  Nestorius 
and  of  John,  had  come  from  Ephesus,  and  when  they  pre- 
sented themselves  to  Theodosius,  they  found  his  mind  pre- 
occupied with  prejudice  against  their  cause.  He  allowed 
the  two  parties  to  dispute  the  case  of  John  in  a public  au- 
dience, but  the  result  was  that  he  ordered  his  almoner,  Count 
John,  to  return  to  Ephesus,  to  regard  Cyril,  Memnon,  and 
Nestorius,  as  all  three  deposed,  and  to  settle  matters  pacifi- 
cally. Count  John's  first  act  was  to  arrest  the  three  bish- 
ops, giving  Cyril  and  Memnon  to  the  care  of  one  officer,  and 
Nestorius  to  that  of  another.  Horrified  at  this  action,  the 

and  Memnon,  wishing  to  be  revenged,  condemned  John  and  all  who  agreed  with  him,  and 
with  similar  arrogance,  visited  both  with  many  evils  at  Ephesus.”  Bre «.,  c.  6.  But  this 
author  was  a stem  defender  of  the  “Three  Chapters,”  and,  therefore,  naturally  hostile  to 
the  memory  of  St.  Cyril. 


Digitized  by  UjOOQle 


NESTORIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  283 

fathers  chose  a faithful  messenger,  and  to  elude  the  vigil- 
ance of  the  partisans  of  Nestorius,  they  enclosed  their  new 
letter  to  the  emperor  in  the  hollow  of  a reed.  In  this  epistle 
they  firmly  refused  to  communicate  with  John  of  Antioch 
and  his  brethren  before  these  assented  to  the  condemnation 
of  Nestorius  ; they  begged  for  the  liberation  of  Cyril  and 
Memnon,  and  asked  the  sovereign  to  receive  and  patiently 
listen  to  a new  embassy  they  would  send.  In  the  reed 
they  also  enclosed  a letter  to  all  the  bishops  then  in  the 
capital,  and  to  its  clergy.  The  consequence  was  that  The- 
odosius was  so  beset  with  supplications,  that  he  decided  to 
receive  a delegation  of  seven  from  each  side.  He  met  the 
legates  at  Chalcedon,  and  having  heard  their  respective 
arguments  as  to  the  validity  of  the  Acts  of  Ephesus,  the 
hopes  of  the  Antioch ians  were  crushed.  On  the  25th  Oct., 
of  the  same  year,  451,  Maxim ian,  a man  of  pure  faith  and 
confirmed  piety,  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Constantino- 
pk  (i). 

As  for  the  convocation  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  Roncag- 
lia,  who  labored  strenuously  to  neutralize  the  Gallicanisms 
of  the  great  work  of  Alexandre,  feels  compelled  to  admit 
that  “ it  is  difficult  to  prove,  from  the  monuments  of  eccle- 
siastical history,  that  the  Ephesine  Synod  assembled  at  the 
orders  of  Pope  Cselestine.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
Council  is  called  legitimate,  not  because  it  was  convoked  by 
the  emperor,  but  because  at  least  the  after-consent  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff  was  accorded,  §ince  the  right  of  calling  Gen- 
eral Councils  belongs  only  to  him  who  rules  the  whole 
Church,  as  Alexandre  himself  well  shows  in  his  dissertation 
on  the  convocation  of  the  Council  of  Nice.”  The  remarks 
which  we  made,  when  speaking  of  the  convocation  of  the 
Nicene  Synod,  and  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
repeat  when  treating  of  that  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
may  also  apply  to  the  indiction  of  the  Ephesine  Synod. 
There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  presidency  of  this  Council, 
for  the  Acts  plainly  show  that  until  the  arrival  of  the 
other  legates  of  Rome,  St.  Cyril  presided  by  virtue  of  his 

(1)  In  the  following  year,  John  of  Antioch  signed  a Confession  of  Faith  drawn  ap  by  St, 
?vrll.  Nestorius  died  in  exile,  in  an  oasis  of  Liby*,  about  the  year  440. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


284 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


appointment  by  the  Pontiff  to  hold  his  place  in  all  matters 
relating  to  Nestorius  ; they  also  show  that  after  the  advent 
of  Arcadius,  Projectus,  and  Philip,  all  presided  in  unison. 

The  authors  of  the  Gallican,  Aulic,  and  Protestant 
schools  contend  that  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  it  was  the 
action  of  the  fathers  that  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  the 
Catholic  world  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  Nestorius  was 
heretical,  and  not  the  action  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  They 
hold  that  the  reformability  of  a Papal  decree  by  a General 
Council  is  shown  in  this  instance,  for,  they  say,  the  fathers 
of  Ephesus  examined  the  letters  of  Pope  Caelestine  to  Cyril 
before  they  assented  to  them.  We  answer  that  the  bishops 
certainly  did  order  the  letters  to  be  read  ; the  documents 
were  issued  to  be  acted  upon,  and  therefore  they  had  to  be 
examined.  But,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  again  to  say, 
when  treating  of  other  Councils,  a judicial  and  critical  ex- 
amination is  one  thing,  and  an  examination  for  information 
is  another ; the  reading  of  the  Pontifical  letters  at  Ephesus 
belonged  to  the  latter,  not  to  the  former  category.  If  we 
read  attentively  the  letters  of  Cselestine  and  Cyril,  and  the 
Ads  of  the  Council,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Pontiff  re- 
garded the  cause  of  Nestorius  as  finished  before  the  Synod 
met ; that  so  it  was  looked  upon  by  Cyril  and  the  fathers. 
Then  of  what  use  was  the  Council  ? Why  so  much  trouble, 
expense,  and  danger?  Not,  certainly,  for  a definitive  judg- 
ment of  the  cause,  but  in  order  that,  by  a manifestation  of 
the  will  of  the  entire  episcopate,  the  audacity  of  heresy 
might  be  the  more  easily  checked,  and  error  more  readily 
refuted.  Again,  a Pontifical  definition  is  made  to  be  re- 
ceived, and  to  be  received  solemnly,  and  submissively,  and 
officially  ; there  is  no  way  of  doing  this  so  appropriate  and 
effective  as  that  furnished  by  a General  Council. 

Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  Pope  Caelestine 
did  not  hand  over  the  cause  of  Nestorius  to  the  will  of  the 
Council ; he  simply  ordered  that  it  should  do  what  was 
necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  decision  he  had  already 
given  at  Rome.  In  his  instructions  to  his  legates,  he  said, 
“You  will  in  all  things  consult  our  brother,  the  bishop  Cy- 
ril (already  made  Papal  legate),  and  you  will  perform  what- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


NESTORIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  F.PHESU8.  285 

ever  you  see  to  be  in  his  power  to  decide  ; and  we  command 
that  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  be  respected.  For  the 
instructions,  which  you  have  received,  tell  you  that  you 
must  be  present  at  the  Council ; if  they  come  to  a disputation , 
you  must  judge  among  their  opinions , and  not  undergo  a struggle 
These  words,  which  are  as  literally  those  of  Cselestine  as 
merely  decent  translation  will  permit,  certainly  show  that 
he  regarded  his  decision  as  definitive.  In  his  epistle  to  the 
Ephesine  prelates,  ne  says : “ On  account  of  our  solicitude, 
we  have  sent  to  you  our  brother  priests,  the  bishops  Arca- 
dius  and  Projectus,  and  the  priest  Philip,  who  are  of  one 
mind  with  ourselves,  who  will  be  present  at  all  that  is  done, 
and  who  will  execute  what  we  have  established.”  This 
epistle  was  brought  to  the  Council  by  the  legates  fchem- 
Belves,  and  as  they  did  not  arrive  until  after  the  condemna- 
tion of  Nestorius,  the  fathers  had  acted  before  they  read  it. 
Nevertheless,  in  pronouncing  sentence  in  the  first  Action , 
the  bishops  said,  “ Compelled  by  the  holy  canons,  and  by 
the  epistle  of  our  Most  Holy  Father  and  co-minister  Caeles- 
tine,  bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  covered  with  tears, 
we  necessarily  come  to  the  sorrowful  sentence  against  Nes- 
torius.” The  epistle  here  mentioned  must  have  been  the 
one  sent  to  St.  Cyril  long  before  the  Council ; hence,  we 
conclude  that  the  Synod  thought  the  decree  of  Cffilestine 
definitive.  Again,  in  the  second  Action,  Firmus,  bishop  of 
the  Cappadocian  Caesarea,  said  to  the  Apostolic  legates, 

“ The  Holy  Apostolic  See,  through  the  letters  of  Caelestine 
sent  to  the  most  religious  bishops,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Ju- 
venal of  Jerusalem,  &c.,  before  the  present  business,  pre- 
scribed the  sentence  and  the  rule  which  we  have  followed. 

since  Nestorius  has  not  appeared  when  cited  by  us, 

we  have  put  into  execution  that  form,  pronouncing  against 
him  the  canonical  and  apostolic  judgment.”  And  if  we  con- 
sider the  conduct  of  the  Papal  legates  in  the  second  Action , | 
our  position  is  still  more  secure.  They  presented  the  fol- 
lowing demand:  “We  request  that  you  order  to  be  made 
known  to  us  that  which  has  been  done  in  this  Holy  Synod 
before  our  coming,  in  order  that  in  accordance  with  the  de- 
cree of  our  Blessed  Pope,  and  with  that  of  this  present  holy 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


286 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


company,  we  also  may  confirm  it that  following  the 

formula  of  the  Most  Holy  Pope  CaBlestine,  who  has  com- 
mitted this  task  unto  us,  we  may  confirm  the  judgments  of 
your  holiness.”  Here  the  legates  declare  that  the  decree  of 
the  Council  must  be  confirmed  by  them  ; is  not  that  a clear 
assertion  of  the  Papal  superiority  ? ‘And  the  fathers  ac- 
quiesced. 

In  the  first  Action , the  Ephesine  fathers  speak  of  Nesto- 
rius  as  “most  reverend”  and  “most  religious,”  but  this 
does  not  prove  that  they  disregarded  the  decree  of  Caeles- 
tine.  As  yet  Nestorius  had  not  been  condemned,  when 
these  terms  were  used  ; up  to  the  very  moment  of  his  sen- 
tence, he  enjoyed  a strict  right  to  receive  the  terms  of  cour- 
tesy and  respect  due  to  his  elevated  position  as  bishop  of 
Constantinople.  Nor  can  it  be  urged  that  the  Pontiff  had 
decreed  his  deposition  if  he  did  not  recant  within  ten  days 
from  his  receipt  of  the  decree  ; that  therefore  the  use  of 
such  respectful  terms  towards  him  implies  an  ignoring  of 
the  Papal  sentence.  For  we  know  from  the  last  letter  of 
the  Pope  to  St.  Cyril,  that  a further  delay  of  time  had  been 
mercifully  accorded.  This  letter  was  read  in  the  second 
Action , and  contains  the  following  passage  : “ Thou  askest 

whether  the  Holy  Synod  ought  to  receive  a man  who  con- 
demns what  it  teaches,  and  whether  the  sentence  yet  holds 
good,  now  that  the  time  of  delay  has  elapsed.  Upon  this 
matter,  let  us  together  consult  our  common  Lord.  Does  He 
not  instantly  answer  by  the  prophet,  that  he  does  not  wish 
the  death  of  the  dying,  and  by  the  apostle  Paul,  that  he 
wishes  every  man  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowl- 


edge of  truth  ? I study  Catholic  peace  ; I study  the 

salvation  of  the  perishing  one,  if  he  is  willing  to  avow  his 
malady If  he  is  to  perish,  let  him  see  that  you  are 


not  quick  to  shed  blood,  when  he  knows  that  a remedy  is 
extended  to  him.” 

Having  briefly  sketched  the  course  and  significance  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  we  will  in  a few  words  indicate  the 
fortunes  of  Nestorianism  after  the  definitive  condemnation 
of  its  leader.  We  refer  the  reader  who  desires  a fuller  ac- 
count than  our  limits  permit  us  to  give,  to  the  valuable  Dio- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


N£STOKIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS.  287 

tionary  of  Bergier.  Proscribed  by  the  Roman  emperors,  the 
Nestorians  sought  the  protection  of  the  Persian  monarchs, 
and  the  enmity  of  the  two  states  proved  favorable  to  them. 
They  founded  celebrated  schools  at  Edessa,  and  established 
the  patriarchate  of  Seleucia,  When  Mohammedanism  over- 
ran the  Eastern  countries,,  the  conquerors  proved  quite  leni- 
ent towards  the  Nestorians,  then  called  Oriental  Chris- 
tians,” and  even  under  that  savage  regime  they  preserved 
enough  vitality  to  send  their  missionaries  into  China,  estab- 
lishing missions  which  lasted  until  the  thirteenth  century. 
At  this  day,  Nestor ianism  is  professed  by  the  schismatic 
portion  of  the  Chaldean  Christians,  and,  according  to  Mo- 
sheim,  it  is  to  their  immortal  honor  that  they  are  the  only 
Eastern  Christians  who  have  avoided  the  superstitions  of 
the  Greek  and  Latin  churches.  When  Mosheim  made  this 
assertion,  he  knew  that  the  modern  Nestorians  agreed  with 
the  Mother  Church  in  teaching  seven  sacraments,  transub- 
stantiation,  the  worship  of  saints,  prayer  for  the  dead.  And 
as  for  what  he  calls  their  purity  of  doctrine,  he  knew  that 
they  teach  that  our  souls  are  created  before  our  bodies  ; that 
they  deny  original  sin  ; that  they  teach  that  not  until  the 
last  day  do  we  receive  our  final  award ; that  they  hold  that 
hell  is  not  eternal.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  since  Protestants 
have  such  sympathy  for  all  the  Orientals  who  hold  aloof 
from  Rome,  that  in  their  liturgy  the  Nestorians  persist  in 
the  use  of  a “ dead  language  ” ; they  never  use  the  vernacu- 
lar, but  always  the  ancient  Syriac,  following  the  custom  of 
all  the  other  schismatic  churches  of  the  East,  not  one  of 
which  has  its  liturgy  in  the  language  of  its  people.  Nor 
should  we  omit  to  note  that  these  Nestorian  Christians  re- 
gard as  canonical  precisely  the  same  books  of  Scripture 
which  Rome  presents  to  her  children,  and  if  our  Protestnnt 
friends  would  reflect  a little  upon  this  fact,  they  would  not 
be  so  confident  that  their  canon  of  Scripture  is  correct  (1). 
There  have  been  several  tentatives  of  reconciliation  with 
Rome  on  the  part  of  the  Nestorians.  Thus,  in  the  year 
1304,  their  patriarch  Iaballaha  sent  a profession  of  ortho- 

(1)  Another  fact  should  be  noted  by  the  Protestant  friends  of  these  Asiatic  schismatics. 
During  the  9even  hundred  years  of  the  Nestorian  missions  In  Tartary,  they  never  presented 
their  converts  with  a Tartar  version  of  the  Bible.  This  was  done,  however,  by  a Franciscan 
friar  In  the  fourteenth  century. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


288 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY: 


doxy  to  Pope  Benedict  XI. ; in  the  pontificate  of  Pius  IV.,  the 
patriarch  Sulaka  did  the  same;  the  latter’s  successor,  Elied- 
jesus,  came  to  Rome  and  made  his  abjuration,  received  from 
the  Supreme  Pontiff  the  pallium,  and  returning  home,  made 
many  converts.  In  the  year  1771,  Dominican  missionaries 
received  into  the  fold  the  Nestorian  patriarch,  then  resident 
at  Mozul,  and  five  of  his  suffragan  bishops.  From  that 
time  to  the  present,  there  has  been  a llourishing  Chaldean 
church  in  communion  with  Rome,  and  governed  by  its  own 
patriarch.  And  now  for  a few  words  upon  those  Nestorians 
who  are  known  in  history  as  the  “ Christians  of  St  Thomas.” 
In  the  year  1500,  the  Portuguese,  having  doubled  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and  penetrated  into  India,  were  thunder- 
struck on  coming  upon  a community  of  Christians  on  the 
coast  of  Malabar.  These  people  called  themselves  “Christians 
of  St.  Thomas,”  and  had  for  a pastor  only  a bishop  who  was 
sent  to  them  by  the  Nestorian  patriarch  of  Mozul. ' They 
declared  that  their  ancestors  had  been  converted  by  the 
Apostle,  St.  Thomas  (1),  but,  according  to  Govea,  the 
Augustinian  historian  of  the  mission  which  John  of  Albu- 
querque, archbishop  of  Goa,  seconded  by  the  Jesuits,  estab- 
lished among  them,  they  erred  in  many  things  besides  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  Their  very  errors,  however,  fur- 
nish good  arguments  to  Catholic  controversialists,  for  in 
them  all  can  be  traced  an  original  belief  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  Some  Protestant  authors  have  en- 
deavored to  show,  by  means  of  these  “ Christians  of  Si 
Thomas,”  that  primitive  Christianity  must  have  been  more 
Protestant  than  Catholic.  If  Protestants  hold  the  necessi- 
ty of  an  episcopal  hierarchy,  if  they  believe  in  Transubstan- 
tiation  and  in  confession,  if  they  enfor  3e  the  celibacy  of  their 
bishops,  and  devoutly  observe  the  fasts  of  Lent,  &c.,  then 
they  may  be  of  some  kith  and  kin  with  these  Nestorians. 
At  present,  the  Malabar  Christians  number  about  three 
hundred  thousand ; less  than  fifty  thousand  are  Nestorians, 
and  the  rest  are  about  equally  divided  between  the  Latin 
and  Syriac  rites  of  the  Roman  Church.  Those  of  the  latter 
rite  have  native  priests. 

(1)  Berrfer  shows,  under  the  article  St.  Thomas,  that  their  assertion  has  some  fair  argu- 
ments in  its  favor. 


Digitized  by  Ujooole 


CHAPTER  XXYII 


THE  FAITH  PREACHED  BY  8T.  PATRICK. 

Is  it  not  known  to  all  that  the  things  which  have  been 
delivered  to  the  Roman  Church  by  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles,  and  preserved  ever  since,  should  be  observed  by 
all ; and  that  nothing  is  to  be  introduced,  devoid  of  author- 
ity, or  borrowed  elsewhere  ? Especially  as  it  is  manifest 
that  no  one  has  founded  churches  for  all  Italy,  the  Gauls, 
Spain,  Africa,  and  the  interjacent  islands,  except  such  priests 
as  were  appointed  by  the  venerable  Peter  and  his  successors  ?” 
(1)  From  the  earliest  times,  the  Roman  Pontiffs  constantly 
carried  out  the  commission  of  our  Lord  to  feed  His  lambs, 
and  all  the  Northern  nations  of  Europe  were  converted  by 
their  missionaries,  it  is  unknown  when  the  name  of  Christ 
was  first  carried  to  Ireland,  but  during  the  Pontificate  of 
Cselestine  I.  (422-432),  the  islanders  were  not  numbered 
among  Christian  peoples.  According  to  the  Chronide  of  St. 
Prosper,  published  about  the  year  434,  “Palladius  was 
ordained  by  Pope  Cselestine,  and  sent  as  first  bishop  to  the 
Irish  (2)  believing  in  Christ.”  The  Life  of  St  Patrick , in 
the  Book  of  Armagh , written  by  Muirchu-Maccu-Mactheni 
before  the  year  700,  records  that  “ Palladius,  archdeacon 
of  Pope  Cselestine.  bishop  of  Rome,  and  45th  successor  of 
St.  Peter  in  the  Apostolic  See,  was  ordained  and  sent  to  con- 
vert this  island,  lying  under  wintry  cold.  But  he  was  un- 
successful, for  no  one  can  receive  anything  from  earth  unless 
it  be  given  to  him  from  heaven  ; and  neither  did  these  fierce 
barbarians  receive  his  doctrine  readily,  Dor  did  he  wish  to 
remain  long  in  a land  not  his  own  ; wherefore,  he  returned 
to  him  who  sent  him.  On  his  way,  however,  after  passing 

(1)  Pope  St.  Innocent  I.;  Epistle  to  Decentius. 

(2)  The  text  has  ad  Scotos.  but,  as  we  had  occasion  to  remark,  when  treating  of  the  Pas- 
chal controversy.  In  the  flfth  century  Ireland  was  the  only  land  known  by  the  name  of  Scotia. 
* Even  In  the  time  of  Fede,”  says  Dr.  Todd,  “ Scotia  meant  no  country  but  Ireland,  ani 
Bcoti  no  people  but  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland.”  See  Todd’s  St.  Patrick%  p.  282. 

289 


Digitized  by  doodle 


290 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  first  sea,  having  begun  his  land  journey,  he  died  in  the 
territory  of  the  Bri  tains.”  The  scholiast  on  St.  Fiacc's  Hymn 
(1),  whose  writings  the  best  Celtic  philologists  refer  to  the 
7th  or  8tli  century,  says,  that  landing  in  Wicklow,  Palladius 
“ founded  some  churches,  Teaclt-na- Roman,  or  House  of  the 
Romans,  Kill  fine,  and  others.  Nevertheless,  he  was  not  well 
received  by  the  people,  but  was  forced  to  sail  around  the 
coast  towards  the  north,  until  he  was  driven  by  a tempest 
to  the  land  of  the  Piets,  where  he  founded  the  church  of 
Fordun  ; and  there  he  is  known  by  the  name  of  Pledi  ” (2). 
But  with  the  advent  of  St.  Patrick,  the  light  of  Christianity 
shone  upon  Ireland.  Probably  born,  certainly  brought  up, 
near  Boulogne-sur-Mer  ( Rowiven  Taberniae,  say  the  Con- 
fessions), in  France,  Patrick  was  led  a captive  to  Ireland,  and 
sold  as  a slave  to  a chieftain  named  Milch u (3).  When  in 
his  twenty-second  year,  he  gained  his  liberty,  and  dedicated 
himself  to  God  in  the  monasteiy  of  Marmontier,  near  Tours. 
After  a few  years,  he  went  to  the  “ blessed  island”  of  Lerins, 
the  founder  of  which  holy  retreat,  St.  Honoratus,  was  still 
living;  among  his  companions  at  this  monastery,  were  Sts. 
Hilary  of  Arles,  Eucherius  of  Lyons,  and  Lupus  of  Troyes, 
together  with  the  famous  author,  Vincent  of  Lerins.  When, 
in  429,  Sts.  Germain  of  Auxerre  and  Lupus  of  Troyes  were 
sent  by  Pope  Crelestine  to  combat  Pelagianism  in  Britain, 
Patrick  accompanied  them,  thus  receiving  his  first  training 
for  the  apostolate  under  the  guidance  of  the  legate  of  the 
Holy  See.  St.  Palladius  was  at  this  time  destined  for  the 
Irish  mission,  and  St.  Germain  thought  that  Patrick,  from 
his  knowledge  of  the  language  and  customs  of  the  people 
would  be  a valuable  acquisition  to  the  apostolic  messenger, 

(1)  The  learned  Irish  arctneologist,  George  Petrie,  says  that  it  is  itself  given  in  MSS. 
which  cannot  be  later  than  the  ninth,  L**ay  on  lara,  p.  71. 

(2)  Colgan  ; Trio*  Thaumat .,  p.  5.  The  leader  will  notice  that  Palladius  did  not  reach 
the  “ land  of  the  Piets"  (modern  Scot  law  i),  until  after  he  had  sailed  around  the  island  of 
the  " Scots,"  and  been  driven  thence  by  a tempest.  We  draw  his  attention  to  the  con  lu- 
slon,  although  there  is  no  longer  any  doubt  among  the  learned  in  such  matters,  that,  before 
the  eleventh  century,  the  term  Scotia  was  applied  only  to  Ireland,  the  proper  name  of  Scot- 
land being  Caledouia.  The  latter  country  changed  its  name  to  Scotland,  only  after  Its 
colonization  by  the  Scots  or  Irish. 

(3)  The  most  ancient  authority,  St.  Fiacc,  mentions  Xcmthur  as  Patrick’s  birthplace,  and 
the  Thre-e  Live*  identify  Xemthur  and  the  Campu * Tohcm  iae.  Probus  says  that  the  View 
Bannavc  Tdhurniae  rwinni*  was  in  Xcutria.  On  the  other  hand,  the  scholiast  on  St. 
Fiaccc’s  Hymn,  and  the  THpartitc  Life  say  that  Nemlhur  was  the  same  asAlcluida ; hence 
Usher  asserted  that  Patrick  was  borne  at  Acluaid  in  Scotland,  now  Dumbarton.  The  4th 
Life  seems  to  reconcile  these  conflicting  statements,  identifying  Xemthur  with  Armorican 
Bnnavem , and  adding  that  it  was  In  the  district  of  St  raUt-cl\ul%  or  Alcluld.  Moran  ; Early 
Irish  Church , p.  2. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


291 


“St  Patrick/'  writes  Probus  “poured  forth  to  God  the  fol- 
lowing prayer : ‘ O Lord  Jesus  Christ,  lead  me,  I beseech 
Thee,  to  the  seat  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  that,  receiving 
authority  there  to  preach  with  confidence  Thy  sacred  truths, 
the  Irish  nation  may,  through  my  ministry,  be  gathered  to 
the  fold  of  Christ.’  And  soon  after,  being  about  to  pro- 
ceed to  Ireland,  this  man  of  God,  Patrick,  went,  as  he  had 
wished,  to  Rome,  the  head  of  all  churches,  and  having  asked 
and  received  the  Apostolic  blessing,  he  returned  by  the 
same  road  by  which  he  had  gone  thither  ” (1).  Having 
secured  the  consent  and  blessing  of  Pope  Cselestine  for 
his  future  labors,  Patrick  journeyed  back  to  Auxerre  to  see 
his  patron,  St.  Germain ; he  then  left  for  his  mission,  but, 
hearing,  on  the  way,  that  St.  Palladius  had  died,  he  paused 
to  receive  episcopal  consecration  at  the  hands  of  Amatorex 
(2).  He  finally  set  out  for  Ireland  in  the  summer  of  432, 
accompanied  by  Analius,  Iserninus,  and  some  others.  It 
is  not  within  our  province  to  enter  into  the  particulars  of  St. 
Patrick’s  wonderful  career.  It  is  more  or  less  familiar  to 
every  Catholic,  and  for  such  Protestants  as  have  agiological 
tastes,  there  is  access  to  many  biographies  of  value.  We 
propose,  however,  to  treat  of  some  questions  concerning  the 
great  apostle,  which  have  been  mooted  by  certain  Protes- 
tants of  the  Anglican  and  Presbyterian  schools — questions 
which,  though  calculated  merely  to  provoke  a smile  on  the 
part  of  one  ordinarily  well  versed  in  historical  matters,  yet 
have  been  seriously  proposed,  and,  by  many,  willingly  enter- 
tained. The  subject  matter  of  our  investigations  has  engaged 
the  pens  of  many  erudite  and  zealous  critics,  but,  to  our  mind, 
no  writer  has  so  well  succeeded  as  Dr.  Moran,  in  his  learned 
work  on  the  early  Irish  church  (3).  We  can  do  no  better 
than  avail  ourselves  of  his  patient  and  discriminating  re- 
search, and  refer  the  reader,  if  he  desires  fuller  information. 


(1)  Probus’  Life  of  St.  Patrick , in  Colgan's  Trias  Thaumat .,  p.  49. 

(2)  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  lndentity  of  this  prelate.  Some  of  the  old  biographies 
call  him  Amator.  Moran  conjectures  that  he  was  St.  Lupus  of  Troyes.  The  old  Latin  treat- 
ise on  the  Irish  Liturgy  says  that,  after  Caelestine,  Sts.  Germain  and  Lupus  had  the  cLlef 
part  In  sending  St.  Patrick  to  Ireland. 

(3)  Essays  on  the  Origin , Doctrine s,  and  Discipline  of  the  Karly  Irish  Church , by  Rev. 
Dr.  Moran,  Vice  Rector  of  the  Irish  College,  ana  professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Propaganda. 
Rome ; now  archbishop  of  Sydney. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


*292 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


to  a really  interesting  and  exhaustive  treatise  (1).  The 
less  complete,  but  yet  instructive  essay  by  Gaffney,  entitled 
The  Ancient  Irish  Church , may  also  be  recommended  to  the 
student. 

The  first,  and  certainly  the  most  amusing,  question  which 
is  raised  with  regard  to  St.  Patrick,  is  whether  or  not  he 
belongs  to  the  mythical  region  occupied  by  the  British 
Arthur,  the  Popess  Joan,  and  William  Tell.  The  existence 
of  our  saint  was  denied  for  the  first  time  by  Ledwich  (2) 
who  based  his  assertion  on  the  assumption  that  the  great 
missionary  was  unknown  to  all  who  wrote  previous  to  the 
ninth  century.  This  foolish  theory  can  soon  be  dismissed, 
for,  says  Moran,  “ All  the  Christian  traditions  of  Ireland 
are  clustered  around  the  memory  of  St.  Patrick.  Her  hills, 
and  islands,  and  streamlets,  and  fountains  re-echo  his  name. 
Every  monument  that  traces  the  line  of  separation  between 
Christianity  and  Paganism  in  Ireland,  rests  for  its  basis  on 
his  existence.  And  hence,  even  should  we  suppose  the  as- 
sumption of  Dr.  Ledwich,  as  regards  the  silence  of  her  early 
records,  to  be  true,  yet  it  would  not  suffice  to  warrant  the 
conclusion  which  he  would  fain  deduce  from  it.”  But  the 
would-be  skeptic  is  wrong  in  his  assertion  that  St.  Patrick 
was  known  to  no  writer  before  the  ninth  century.  In  the 
eighth  century,  ^Engus,  in  his  Felire , marks  the  feast  of  St. 
Patrick  (3).  The  Irish  Collection  of  Canons,”  preserved 
in  MSS.  of  the  same  century,  contains  decrees  enacted  by 
him.  The  famous  Stowe  Missal,  which  Dr.  Todd  admits 
to  be  at  least  of  that  period,  has  St.  Patrick’s  name  in  the 
Litany.  Alcuin  calls  him  the  “ glory  of  the  Scottish  race.” 
In  the  seventh  century,  Adamnan  speaks  of  a bishop  who 
was  “ the  disciple  of  holy  bishop  Patrick  ” (4).  The  Anti- 
phonary of  Bangor,  composed  before  the  year  691  (5),  has 
a “ Hymn  of  St.  Patrick,  Teacher  of  the  Scots.”  St. 
Cummian  Fota  (d.  661),  left  a Hymn  in  honor  of  the 

(1)  The  reader  may  also  consult  with  profit  Lanigan’s  Ecclesiastical  History , the  weeks 
Issued  by  the  Irish  Archaeological  Society,  and  O’Curry ’s  MS.  Materials  of  Irish  History • 

(2)  Antiquities  of  Ireland. 

(3)  Curry  ; Lectures , p.  3fc8.  Petrik  ; Essay  on  Tara,  p.  89. 

(4)  Reeves  ; Columba. 

<5)  Lanioan  ; Eccles.  Hist.,  v.  1,  p.  60. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


293 


Apostles,  the  sixteenth  strophe  of  which  is  devoted  to  St. 
Patrick.  St.  Cummian  Albus,  abbot  of  Iona,  in  his  life  of 
the  founder,  speaks,  at  the  very  beginning,  of  “ St.  Patrick, 
first  apostle  of  Ireland.”  In  an  Irish  poem  by  St.  Cuimin 
of  Connor,  one  verse  is  devoted  to  the  fasting  of  “ Patrick; 
of  Ardmacha’s  city,  the  son  of  Calphurn.”  In  the  letter  of 
the  abbot  of  Durrow  on  the  Paschal  controversy,  written  in 
634,  one  of  the  arguments  for  the  use  of  the  Roman  compu- 
tation is  that  it  was  used  by  “ our  father  Patrick  ” (1).  In 
the  sixth  century,  St.  Columba,  the  Irish  apostle  of  Scot- 
land, terminates  his  transcription  of  the  Gospels,  with  a 
prayer  to  “ the  holy  bishop  Patrick  ’*  (2).  Some  of  the 
Saint’s  deeds  are  commemorated  in  the  Hymn  of  St.  Fiacc, 
even  the  Scholia  to  which  Usher  ascribes  to  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. St.  Fiacc  refers  to  still  earlier  records  regarding  St. 
Patrick,  and  the  Tripartite  Life,-  supposed  to  be  by  St 
Evin,  gives  customs  and  proverbs  originating  in  the 
apostle’s  deeds  and  teaching.  So  much  for  the  assertipn 
that  St.  Patrick  was  unknown  to  all  who  wrote  before  the 
ninth  century. 

We  now  come  to  the  nature  of  the  doctrine  preached  by 
St.  Patrick.  A certain  class  of  Protestants  in  Ireland  nois- 
ily proclaim  that  the  religion  taught  by  our  saint  was  not 
that  at  present  held  by  the  Irish  masses ; that,  in  fine,  the 
•doctrines  now  presented  by  the  Anglican  establishment  were 
those  inculcated  by  him,  and  that  this  institution  itself  is  the 
self-same  church  founded  by  the  apostle  (3).  In  refutation 
of  this  theory,  we  shall  now  examine,  firstly,  into  the  senti- 

(1>  Usher  ; SuJloges  Epp.  cp.  11. 

(2)  Westwood;  Palceoyr.  Sar.  O’Conor;  Writer s,  1—188. 

(8)  The  London  Time *,  of  May  20th,  1868,  gives  the  following  remarks  of  James  Whiteside, 
M.  P.,  in  the  House  of  Commons : “ If  I were  asked  to  say  why  I maintain  that  branch  of  the 
•church  which  exists  in  Ireland,  my  answer  would  be,  plainly  and  directlv,  that  I maintain 
it  because  I believe  it  upholds  the  ancient,  pure.  Catholic,  faith  which  was  professed  In 
Ireland,  centuries  before  the  English  set  foot  in  that  country.  The  ables*  scholars,  the  beet 
divines,  the  soundest  antiquaries,  are  agreed  upon  that  point ; and  no  man  has  proved  it 
more  logically,  or  more  conclusively,  than  Canon  Wordsworth,  In  the  series  of  discourses 
which  he  delivered  in  Westminster  Abbey,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  our  claim  to  be 
the  true  descendants  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland.  That  man  Is  profoundly 
ignorant  who  attacks  the  ancient  church  in  Ireland.  The  question  between  us  and  the 
Roman  Catholics  is,  which  of  us  most  nearly  conforms  to  that  church  ? Few  will  venture  to 
deny  that  the  argument  of  the  divine  who  compared  the  ancient  creed  with  that  which 
we  repeat  every  §abbath-day— who  showed  that  the  Nicene  Creed  agrees,  in  substance,  with 
that  established  by  St.  Patrick— was  conclusive ; and,  therefore.  I maintain  that  the  church 
in  Ireland  preserves  the  old,  ancient,  true.  Catholic  faith  ” (cheers).  The  cool  Impudence 
ot  this  assumption  is  only  equalled  by  the  audacity  that  appeals  to  “ the  ablest  scholars  and 
antiquaries  ” for  help  in  sustaining  it.  Was  such  the  opinion  of  O’Donovan,  by  far  the  best 
Irish  antiquarian  of  the  age  ? Was  O’Curry,  the  best  historian  of  ancient  Ireland,  of  this 
belief? 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


294 


STUDIES  I* i CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ments  of  the  early  Irish  Christians  in  regard  to  the  Roman 

See. 

“As  true,”  says  Wilde,  “as  that  the  Irish  people  were  gov- 
erned by  their  own  kings  and  princes,  and  were  amenable 
to  their  own  laws  and  Brehons  only,  up  to  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century,  so  true  is  it  that  the  Irish  Catholic  church 
was  independent  of  all  foreign  rule,  in  either  temporal  or 
spiritual  matters,  until  the  beginning  of  that  period”  (1). 
With  regard  to  any  temporal  suzerainty  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff over  Ireland,  either  before  or  after  the  twelfth  century, 
we  have  nothing  to  say.  We  propose  to  decide  this  ques- 
tion— Was  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  ac- 
knowledged by  the  early  Irish  church  ? We  shall  prove  that 
it  was,  firstly,  because  the  Irish  church  was  founded  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  accepted  her  doctrines,  one  of  which 
was  the  Papal  supremacy  ; secondly,  because  that  supremacy 
was  expressly  avowed  by  the  early  Irish  ecclesiastical 
writers,  and  attested  by  the  canonical  enactments  of  the  early 
Irish  church  ; thirdly,  because  it  was  the  custom  of  the  early 
Irish  church  to  appeal  to  the  Holy  S^e,  and  to  be  guided 
by  its  decisions.  As  to  the  foundation  of  the  Irish  church, 
Usher  admits  the  Roman  mission  of  Sts.  Palladius  and 
Patrick.  “ Prom  the  first  legation  of  Palladius  and  Patricius, 
who  were  sent  to  plant  the  faith  in  this  country,  it  cannot  be 
shown  out  of  any  monument  of  antiquity,  that  the  bishop 
of  Rome  ever  sent  any  of  his  legates  before  Gillebertus,”  &c. 
(2).  Nor  could  Usher  avoid  the  admission,  for  Eric  of  Aux- 
erre,  a French  monk  of  the  ninth  century,  says  of  St.  Pat- 
rick, that  “ as  Germain  saw  him  magnanimous  in  religion, 
eminent  for  virtue,  strenuous  in  the  sacred  ministry,  and 
thinking  it  unfit  that  so  strong  a husbandman  should  be 
listless  in  the  cultivation  of  God’s  harvest,  he  sent  him  to 
holy  Cralestine,  the  Pope  of  the  city  of  Rome,  accompanied 
by  his  own  priest.  Segetius,  who  might  bear  witness  to  his 
ecclesiastical  probity  at  the  Apostolic  See.  Being  thus  ap- 
proved by  its  judgment,  leaning  on  its  authority,  and 
strengthened  by  its  blessing,  he  journeyed  to  Ireland,  and  be- 
ing given  to  that  people  as  its  chosen  apostle,  he  illustrated 

(1)  Boyne  and  Blackwater , p.  281.  (2)  Religion  of  Ancient  Iriah , c.  VIII. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


295 


i 

the  whole  nation  at  that  time,  indeed,  by  his  preaching  and 
miracles,  as  he  continues  to  do  at  the  present  day,  and  will 
continue  forever  to  illustrate  it  by  the  wonderiul  privileges 
of  his  apostolate .'*  Mark  the  Anchorite  wrote  his  H story 
j of  the  Britons  in  822,  and  in  it  we  find  a short  sketch  of  the 
life  of  our  saint,  which  may  justly  be  taken  as  deriving  lroin 
the  most  authentic  records  (1).  “ Under  divine  guidance 

Patrick  was  instructed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  then  he 
^went  to  Rome  and  remained  there  a long  time,  studying,  and 
jbeing  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  learning  the  holy  Scrip- 
jtures  and  the  Sacred  Mysteries.  And  whilst  he  was  there 
applying  himself  to  these  pursuits,  Palladius  was  sent  by 
Pope  Cselestine  as  first  bishop  to  convert  the  Irish  to 
jClirist ; but  God,  by  some  storms  and  signs,  prevented  his 
jsuccess  ; and  no  one  can  receive  aught  on  earth,  unless  it  be 
.given  to  him  from  above.  This  Palladius,  returning  from 
Ireland  to  Britain,  died  there  in  the  land  of  the  Piets.  The 
[death  of  bishop  Palladius  being  known,  the  patricians  The- 
odosius and  Valentinian  being  the  Roman  rulers,  Patrick 
was  sent  by  Pope  Caelestine,  the  angel  of  God,  Victor,  ac- 
companying, guiding,  and  assisting  him,  and  by  bishop  Ger- 
main, to  convert  the  Irish  to  the  belief  in  the  Holy  Trinity.*’ 
The  ancient  and  most  authentic  of  the  Irish  annalists  also 
derive  the  mission  of  St.  Patrick  from  the  Holy  See.  Thus, 
the  Four  Masters  wTrite  : “ St.  Patrick  was  ordained  to  the 
episcopacy  by  the  holy  Pope  Caelestine,  the  first  who  com- 
missioned him  to  come  to  Ireland  and  preach,  and  give  to 
the  Irish  the  precepts  of  faith  and  religion  ’ (9).  And  the 
Annala  of  Innisfallen  say  that  “ Patrick  came  from  Rome, 
bishop,  into  Ireland,  and  devoutly  preached  here  the  faith 
of  Christ”  (3).  The  Annals  of  Ulster  begin:  “In  the  year 
from  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  431,  Palladius  was  by  Pope 
Caelestine  ordained  bishop  of  the  Irish,  J3tius  and  Valerian 
being  consuls.  He  was  the  first  that  was  sent  to  Ireland  that 

they  might  be  converted  to  Christ In  the  year  432,  Patrick 

came  to  Ireland  in  the  ninth  year  of  Theodosius  the  Younger 

(1)  “ History  of  the  Britons  by  the  Anchorite  Mark  from  a Vatican  MS.  of  the  10ty 
century,  and  published  In  1819,  by  W.  Gun,  London. 

(2)  Four  Master 8,  by  O' Donovan,  y.  432. 

(8)  An  Interesting  account  of  these  Annals  is  given  in  Curry's  Lectures,  p.  7U, 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


296 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  first  of  the  episcopacy  of  Sixtus.  Sixtus  was  the  forty- 
second  bishop  of  Rome,  as  Bede,  and  Mareellin,  and  Isidore 

reckon  in  their  chronicles In  the  year  439,  Secundinus, 

Auxilius,and  Iserninus,were  sent  as  bishops  into  Ireland  to  as- 
sist St.  Patrick.”  The  great  chronicle  of  Marianus  Scotus, 
which  the  Anglican  Reeves  admits  to  be  “ the  most  elabor- 
ate historical  production  of  the  middle  ages,  and  always  en- 
joying the  highest  encomiums  of  the  learned”  (1),  was  com- 
posed in  the  eleventh  century  (2).  It  thus  chronicles  the 
mission  of  St.  Patrick : “ In  the  eighth  year  of  Theodosius, 

Bassus  and  Antiochus  being  consuls,  Palladius  was  ordained 
by  Pope  Cselestine,  and  sent  as  first  bishop  to  the  Irish  be- 
lieving in  Christ.  After  him  was  sent  St.  Patrick,  who,  being 
a Briton  by  birth,  was  consecrated  by  Pope  St  Caalestine,  and 
sent  to  the  archiepiscopate  of  Irelaud.  There,  during  sixty 
years,  he  confirmed  his  preaching  by  signs  and  miracles,  and 
converted  the  whole  island  to  the  faith  of  Christ.”  St.  Pat- 
rick himself  refers  to  the  See  of  Peter  as  the  source  of  Ire- 
land’s Christianity  (3).  He  thus  exhorts  his  converts : 
“ Thanks  be  to  God,  you  have  passed  from  the  kingdom  of 
Satan  to  the  city  of  God ; the  church  of  the  Irish  is  a church 
of  Romans  ; as  you  are  children  of  Christ,  so  be  you  children 
of  Rome. ” The  great  Columbanus  wrote  to  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff, less  than  a hundred  years  from  the  death  of  St.  Patrick, 
that  “The  Catholic  faith  is  held  unshaken  by  us  as  it  was- 
delivered  to  us  by  you,  the  successors  of  the  holy  Apostles  *’ 
(4).  The  Leabhar  Breac , described  by  the  Protestant  Petrie 
as  “ the  oldest  and  best  Irish  MS.  relating  to  Church 
history  now  preserved,  or  which  perhaps  the  Irish  ever, 
possessed  ”(5),  and  which  is  certainly  tjie  chief  collection  of 
religious  compositions  extant  in  Gaelic,  gives  the  following 
attestation  of  the  Roman  commission  of  Palladius  and  Pat- 
rick : “ The  year  that  Patrick  came  to  Ireland  was  the  433rd 

(1)  Translation  of  Wattenbach'n  Iriah  Monanteiics  in  Germany , p.  18,  not©  q. 

(2)  The  proper  name  of  Marianus  Scotus  was  Maelhrigt©  ( servant  of  Bridget ).  Born  in  Ul- 
ster in  1028,  he  became  a monk  in  1052,  and  four  years  later,  entered  the  Irish  monastery  of 
St.  Martin  at  Cologne.  He  removed  to  Mentz  in  1009,  and  there  worked  out  his  great  Chron- 
icle. The  autograph  copy,  with  Marianus’  signature,  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican. 

<3#  Sayinoft  of  St.  Patrick , in  the  Book  of  Armagh.  This  oelclrated  book  was 
transcrib'd  In  807.  and  was  then  believed  to  have  been  originally  written  hy  St.  Patrick. 
This  has  boon  skilfully  proved  by.the  Protestant  Graves.  See  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Irish 
Academy,  Nov.  :-10,  Kh). 

(t)  G/jtsth  to  Bnii/acc  IV.  (5)  Tara,  p.  74. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


297 


from  the  Incarnation,  in  the  9fch  year  of  the  reign  of  Theo- 
dosius, king  of  the  world,  and  in  the  1st  year  of  the  episco- 
pacy of  Sixtus,  the  successor  of  Peter,  and  in  the  4th  year 
of  the  reign  of  Leoghaire  Mac  Niall,  at  Tara,  and  in  the  60th 
year  of  his  own  age.  For  sixty  years  he  baptized  and  instruct- 
ed the  men  of  Erin,  as  Fiacc  says,  ‘He  preached,  for  three 
score  years,  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  to  the  tribes  of  the 
Feni.*  And  here  is  the  character  given  by  Heleran  of  Pat- 
rick, at  the  time  when  he  brought  an  account  of  him  to  Clon- 
ard  : ‘ Meek  and  great  was  the  son  of  Calphurn,  a vine-branch 

laden  with  fruit’ Palladius  was  sent  by  Pope  Caelestine 

with  a gospel  for  Patrick  to  preach  it  to  the  Irish.  This 
was  the  401st  year  from  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  (1).  In 
the  year  after  this,  Patrick  went  to  preach  in  Ireland, 
jEtius  and  Valerius  being  consuls.  It  was  in  this  year  that 
Sixtus  assumed  the  supremacy  of  Home  after  Caelestine,  and 
it  was  the  4th  of  the  reign  of  Leoghaire,  son  of  Niall,  at  Tara.” 
From  all  these  authorities  it  is  evident  that  the  Irish  church 
was  founded  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was  a daughter  of 
that  Church. 

We  now  propose  to  show  that  the  early  Irish  church  turned 
to  Rome  with  filial  reverence,  and  acknowledged  the  di- 
vinely guaranteed  authority  of  the  Holy  See.  This  is 
evinced,  firstly,  from  the  writings  of  early  Irish  ecclesiastics. 
In  the  old  Irish  monastery  of  Reichenau,  the  eminent  an- 
tiquarian, Francis  Mone,  discovered,  a few  years  ago,  some 
valuable  Irish  MSS.  of  the  8th  and  9th  centuries,  in  which 
were  contained  two  Hymns  very  pertinent  to  our  thesis  (2). ' 
In  the  first,  St.  Peter  “ holds  the  place  of  Christ,  and  feeds 
His  sacred  fold;”  he  is  styled  “ the  foundation  of  the  Uni- 
versal Christian  Church he  is  pronounced  “the  legislator 
of  the  Most  High;”  and  he  is  adorned  with  “the  aureola  of 
Rome,  in  which  city  he  is  destined  to  reign  with  an  ever-en- 
during triumph.”  In  the  second,  the  Apostle  is  called  the 
key-bearer  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  for  all  time  ; he  is  the 
pontiff  of  souls,  the  shepherd  of  all  the  fold  of  Christ.  St.  Cum- 

(1  > The  Irish  writers  generally  assign  the  crucifixion  to  the  year  31  of  the  vulgar  era.  For 
reason  of  discrepancy,  see  Alexandre’s  Dissert.  II. , in  1st  Cent. 

(5i)  Latin  Hymns  of  the  Middle  Ages;  Freiburg,  1856. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


298 


STUDIES  IN  CHUKCH  HISTOltY. 


mian  Fota  (1),  born  in  590,  of  whom  the  scholiast  on  the  Felirfi 
of  jEngus  says  that,  when  he  and  other  saints  prayed  to  God 
for  different  graces,  that  of  wisdom  fell  to  Cummian,  has  the 
following  passage,  in  a Hymn  on  the  Apostles  : “Rejoice,  O 
New  Jerusalem ! Solemnize  the  gladsome  festivals  of 
Chris*,  and  exult  in  the  commemorations  of  the  Apostles — 
of  Peter  the  kev-bearer,  the  first  pastor,  the  mystic  fisher- 
man, who,  with  the  Gospel-net,  draws  in  the  spiritual  fish 
of  Christ.”  The  Penitential  of  this  same  St.  Cummiau  FotaA 
(the  Tall)  was  the  basis  of  many  similar  codes  in  the  eighth, 
ninth,  and  tenth  centuries  (2).  In  this  work,  the  saint  shows 
how,  in  his  time,  contempt  for  Roman  customs  was  pun- 
ished. Having  prescribed  a fast  of  forty  days  for  any  pas- 
tor who,  through  ignorance,  allows  a heretic  to  say  Mass 
in  his  church,  and  having  extended  the  fast  to  a year,  if  the 
heresy  is  public,  he  adds  : “ But  should  he  thus  permit  any 
individual  to  celebrate,  through  contempt  for  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  for  the  customs  of  Rome,  he  himself  shall  be 
cast  off  as  a heretic,  unless  he  do  penance,  and  his  penance 
shall  last  for  ten  years.”  One  of  the  most  important  mon- 
uments of  the  Irish  church  is  the  Missal  of  St.  Cdumbanus 
(3),  first  published  by  Mabillon  in  1724,  and  the  MS.  of 
which  the  learned  Benedictine  judged  to  be  then  “ more  than 
a thousand  years  old”  i'4).  In  the  Mass  assigned  in  this  Mis- 
sal to  the  feast  of  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter,  the  prince  of  the 
Apostles  is  said  to  hold  “ the  keys  of  heaven,  the  dignity  of 
the  Pontifical  chair ; so  great  a power,  that  what  he  binds, 
none  can  loosen,  and  what  he  loosens,  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
heaven ; a throne  of  exalted  dignity,  where  he  will  sit  in 
judgment  on  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.”  And  the  first 
Collect  of  the  same  Mass  says,  “ Oh  God  ! who  on  this  day 
didst  give  to  St.  Peter,  after  Thyself,  the  headship  of  the 
whole  Church,  we  humbly  pray  Thee,  that  as  Thou  didst 
constitute  him  pastor  for  the  safety  of  the  flock,  and  that 
Thy  sheep  might  be  preserved  from  error,  so  now  Thou  may- 

(1)  His  contemporaries  styled  him  the  Gregory  the  Great  of  Ireland. 

(2)  In  his  Appendix  III.,  Dr.  Moran  proves  that  this  Penitential  cannot  Le  ascribed  t* 
any  other  author  than  St.  Cummian  the  Tall. 

(3)  Brought  from  Bobblo  to  the  Ambrosian  Library  by  C.ir.linal  Frederick  Borromeo. 

(4)  Italian  Muaeurrb,  v.  1. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


299 


est  save  as  through  hi9  intercession. ” “The  monastery  of 
Bangor,”  says  Moran,  “was  the  school  of  sanctity  from 
which  Colu ;ii baims  went  forth,  towards  the  close  of  the  sixth 
century,  to  renew  the  well-nigh  spent  civilization  of  Gaul,  Ger- 
many, and  Italy.  The  memory  of  few  of  the  Irish  f aints 
has  been  better  preserved  on  the  continent  than  that  of 
Coliirnbanus,  and  of  none  do  so  many  written  memorials 
still  remain.  It  is  owing  to  this  circumstance  that  we  are 
able  to  enter  more  fully  into  an  examination  of  his  teaching 
concerning  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See,  than  we  have 
done  in  regard  to  the  other  ancient  writers  of  the  Irish 
church.  Indeed,  his  letter  to  Pope  Boniface  is  so  replete 
with  expressions  of  reverential  devotedness  to  Rome,  that 
it  is  difficult  to  refrain  from  quoting  the  whole  of  that  noble 
document.  Our  saint  had  just  settled  in  North  Italy,  and 
on  every  side  was  encompassed  by  those  who  warmly  de- 
fended the  well  known  schism  of  the  ‘Three  Chapters.*  King 
Agilulf,  at  whose  request  St.  Columbanus  wrote  this  let' 
ter  to  the  Pontiff,  was  himself  the  patron  of  the  schismatics, 
and  hence  the  holy  man,  fearing  lest  he  might,  perhaps,  be 
betrayed  into  some  error  by  the  influence  of  those  who  sur- 
rounded him,  at  the  very  outset  of  his  letter  declares  that 
whatever  ‘he  shall  say  useful  or  orthodox,  was  to  be  reput- 
ed to  the  Pontiff’s  praise,  but  if  any  word,  perchance,  should 
bear  the  impress  of  intemperate  zeal,  it  was  to  be  referred 
* not  to  any  insubordination,  but  to  his  own  individual  lack 
of  wisdom  and  discretion.*  ” The  letter  is  addressed  to  the 
most  beautiful  Head  of  all  the  churches  of  the  whole  of 
Europe ; to  the  beloved  Pope  ; the  exalted  prelate ; the 
most  reverend  overseer ; the  pastor  of  pastors,”  &c.  The  Pon- 
tiffs are  designated  as  “ the  masters,  the  steersmen,  the  mys- 
tic pilots  of  the  spiritual  ship,  that  is,  the  Church.”  Of  the 
Irish  people  he  says  : “ We  are  the  scholars  of  Sts.  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  of  all  disciples  subscribing  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  the  divine  canon  ; all  are  Irish,  inhabitants  of  the 
remotest  part  of  the  whole  world,  receiving  nothing  save 
what  is  Evangelic  and  Apostolic  doctrine.  None  of  us  has 
been  a heretic,  none  a Jew,  none  a schismatic  ; but  the  faith, 
just  as  it  was  at  first  delivered  by  you,  the  successors  of  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


300 


STUDIES  IN  CHUttCn  HISTORY. 


holy  Apostles,  is  held  unshaken We  are , as  I said  be- 

fore, bound  to  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter.  For  although  Rome  is  great 
and  iUustrious , yet  it  is  only  through  this  Chair  thaJt  she  is  grtat 
and  renowned  amongst  us.” 

The  Anglican  Murray  (1)  says  that  the  language  of  this 
letter  is  “ too  strong  to  allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  Irish  monk, 
who  used  it,  considered  Pope  Boniface,  whom  he  was  address- 
ing, to  be  the  head  of  the  Church.”  And  yet  the  writer  ex- 
pressly styles  tho  Pontiff  •*  pastor  of  pastors,”  and  if  he 
writes  with  that  energy  which  might  be  expected  from  one 
who  had  grown  old  in  the  apostolate,  he  adds,  as  though 
anticipating  Murray’s  objection,  “ therefore,  freely  will  I 
speak,  for  I address  our  spiritual  masters,  the  steersmen 
and  pilots  of  the  mystic  ship.”  Murray  also  asserts  that 
St.  Columbanus  says  “ it  is  possible  for  the  see  of  Home 
to  forfeit  Apostolic  honor  by  not  preserving  the  Apostolic 
faith.”  This  is  a deliberate  falsification  of  the  text  (2), 
which  reads : “ That  you  may  not  lack  Apostolic  honor, 
preserve  the  Apostolic  faith,  confirm,”  &c.  The  idea  of  Co- 
lumbanus is,  that  if  the  Pontiff  were  slow  in  repressing  her- 
esy, he  would  merit  reproach,  not  praise  ; but  he  does  not 
insinuate  that,  even  then,  the  supremacy  of  the  See  would 
bet  affected.  When  our  saint  summons  Boniface  to  “ pre- 
serve the  Apostolic  faith,”  he  addresses  him  as  the  univer- 
sal pastor.  “ The  sheep,”  he  says,  “ are  affrighted  by  the 
approach  of  wolves ; wherefore  use,  O Pope,  the  whistlings 
and  well-known  voice  of  the  true  shepherd,  and  stand  be- 
tween the  sheep  and  the  wolves,  so  that,  casting  away  their 
fear,  the  sheep  may  in  everything  find  thee  the  first  paster. 

Set,  in  a manner,  higher  than  all  mortals,  and  exalted 

near  unto  the  celestial  beings,  lift  up  thy  voice  as  a trumpet, 
that  thou  mayest  show  their  wicked  doings  to  the  people 
of  thy  Lord,  entrusted  to  thee  by  Him.”  Claude,  bishop  of 
Auxerre,  better  known  as  Claudius  Clemens,  an  Irish  writer 
of  the  ninth  century,  is  the  next  to  whose  testimony  we 

(1)  Dean  of  Ardagh,  and  author  of  a “ History  of  Ireland  and  her  Church.  ” 

(2)  “ Ut  ergo  honors  Apostolico  non  cartas , constrva  fidem  ApostoUcam*  confirma 
testimonial'  etc. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BT  ST.  PATRICK. 


301 


would  draw  attention.  In  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  (1), 
there  are  some  passages  which  Usher  tries  to  endow  with  a 
Protestant  sense,  by  dint  of  omitting  the  context,  or  by 
forced  interpretation  (2).  Among  the  passages  omitted,  is 
the  following:  “To  thee  will  I give  the  keys  of  the  king- 

dom of  heaven.  The  word  key , then,  does  not  here  refer  to 
anything  material  formed  by  the  hand  of  man,  but  it  indi- 
cates the  judiciary  power.  He  who  with  a zeal  greater  than 
the  rest,  acknowledged  Christ,  was  deservedly,  in  a 
special  manner,  endowed  with  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.”  This  also  is  omitted  : “But  blessed  Peter,  who 
had  acknowledged  Christ  in  the  fulness  of  faith,  and  loved 
Him  with  a true  love,  received,  in  a special  manner,  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  princedom  of  judiciary 
authority , that  thus  all  the  faithful  throughout  the  universe 
might  understand,  that  xvliosoever  in  any  manner  separates 
himself from  the  unity  of  his  faith  and  communion , such  a me  can 
neither  he  absolved  from  the  Ijonds  of  sin , nor  enter  the  portals  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  We  would  remind  the  reader  of  the 
testimony  of  St.  Cummian  the  hermit  (3),  whom,  when  treat- 
ing of  the  Paschal  question,  we  cited  as  saying,  “ ‘An  old 
authority/  says  Jerome,  ‘rises  up  against  me.  Meanwhile, 
I shout  out,  whosoever  is  joined  to  the  Chair  of  Peter,  with 
him  shall  I be.’  ” One  of  the  ancient  Brehon  Laws,  and 
preserved  in  the  Leabhar  Breac,  is  given  in  an  Irish  tract 
called,  “ On  Injury  and  Assault  to  Ecclesiastics.”  It  pro- 
ceeds by  question  and  answer  and  lays  down  the  ancient 
legislation  of  the  Irish  in  regard  to  the  respect  due  to 
chiirchmen.  In  it  we  read : “ Which  is  the  highest  dignity 
on  earth?  Answer — The  dignity  of  the  Church.  Which 
is  the  highest  dignity  in  the  Church  ? Answer — The  digni- 
ty of  a bishop,  and  the  highest  of  bishops  is  the  bishop  of 
Peter's  Church,  to  whom  the  Homan  kings  are  subject.” 

(1)  This  Commentary  has  been  attributed  to  the  contemporaneous  Claude  of  Turin ; but 
the  Internal  evidence  is  in  favor  of  the  Irishman,  as  well  as  the  Cambridge  MS.,  which 
has  the  title  “ Claudii  Scoti  Commentariu s.”  Such  Is  the  opinion  of  Usher,  Ware,  Colgan, 
Harris,  and  Rothe. 

(2)  8ee  Moran  p.  8,  r.  1. 

(8)  Some  confound  this  writer  with  St.  Cummian  Fota,  but  Colgan,  together  with  the  an- 
cient tradition  of  Ireland,  identifies  him  with  Cummian  the  Fair,  abbot  of  Hy,  who  died  In 
669.  More  modern  authors  reject  the  latter  theory,  Moran  thinks,  on  very  slight  grounds. 
This  Cummian  at  one  time  ruled  the  monastery  of  Durrow,  but  all  the  scholiasts  are  silent 
as  to  any  connection  of  Cummian  Fota  with  Durrow. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


302 


studies  in  Church  history. 


After  assigning  the  respective  fines  for  various  injuries  to 
clerics,  the  tract  continues  : “ Where  is  this  doctrine  found  ? 
Answer — It  is  found  in  the  treatise  which  Augustine  wrote 
upon  the  Degrees  of  the  Church,  and  upon  the  flues  and 
the  reparation  to  be  made  ; and  it  is  thus,  according  to  th( 
rule  of  the  Church  of  Peter,  empress  of  the  whole  world.' 
(1).  Seventy  years  before  the  English  invasion  of  Ireland, 
Gille-Esperic  (Gillebert)  was  appointed  bishop  of  Lumne- 
acli,  anglice , Limerick.  One  of  his  first  episcopal  acts  was 
to  congratulate  St.  Anselm  on  having  “ induced  the  untam- 
able minds  of  the  Normans  to  submit  to  the  canons  of  the 
holy  Fathers  ” (2).  He  also  addressed  a treatise  on  the 
Ecclesiastical  State  ” to  all  the  Irish  clergy,  from  which 
we  take  the  following  : “ The  picture  I have  drawn  show- 
eth  that  all  the  Church’s  members  are  to  be  brought  under 
one  chief  bishop,  to  wit,  Christ  and  His  vicar,  blessed  Pe- 
ter the  Apostle,  and  the  Pope  presiding  in  his  See,  to  be 

governed  by  them As  Noah  was  placed  to  rule  the 

ark  amidst  the  waves  of  the  flood,  just  so  does  the  Roman 
Pontiff  rule  the  Church  amid  the  billows  of  this  world.  . . . 

. . , The  position  held  in  the  Eastern  church  by  the  patri- 
archs is  that’ which  belongs  to  archbishops  in  the  West ; and 
both  patriarchs  and  archbishops  are  subject  in  the  first  de- 
gree to  the  Roman  Pontiff.  As  the  patriarchs,  however,  gov- 
ern the  Apostolic  sees,  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  it  is 
their  privilege  to  ordain  archbishops,  and,  in  a manner,  are 
they  likened  to  the  bishop  of  Home.  To  Peter  alone, however, 
was  it  said  : ‘Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I will  build 
my  Church.’  Therefore,  the  Pope  alone  is  exalted  in  dignity 
above  the  whole  Church,  and  he  alone  has  the  privilege 
of  ordaining  and  judging  all”  (3). 

That  the  early  Irish  church  acknowledged  the  supremacy 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  is  also  shown  by  her  canonical  enact- 
ments. In  the  ancient  Book  of  Armagh  (4),  is  preserved  a 
canon  of  St.  Patrick,  in  which,  after  a reservation  of  certain 

(1)  Curry  MSS.  in  the  Catholic  University  of  Ireland. 

C2)  This  letter  was  accompanied  by  a present  of  twenty-five  Irish  pearls. 

(3)  USUKR;  SiiUoijrs  Kfrist.,  n.  30. 

(4)  It  is  found  in  “ that  part  of  the  same  old  MS.  which  was  copied  from  the  book 

written  by  St.  «*wn  baud.**  Curry’s  Lixture p.  378;  Petrie's  Tom,  p.  81. 


Digitized  by  UjOOQie 


FAT  Til  PREACHED  liY  ST.  PATRICK 


303 


cases  to  tbe  see  of  Armagh,  it  is  decreed  : “ Moreover,  if  any 
case  of  extreme  difficulty  shall  arise,  and  one  which  the 
various  judges  of  the  Irish  nation  cannot  decide,  let  it  be 
referred  to  the  see  of  the  chief  bishop  of  the  Irish  (that  is, 
of  Patrick),  and  submitted  to  his  episcopal  examination. 
But  if  such  a case  of  the  aforesaid  importance  cannot  easily 
be  decided  in  that  see  with  the  assistance  of  its  wise  coun- 
sellors, we  have  decreed  that  it  be  sent  to  the  Apostolic  See, 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  Chair  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  which  hold* 
the  authority  of  the  city  of  Borne. ” With  regard  to  thi* 
canon,  which  he  admits  to  be  genuine  (1),  Usher  patroniz- 
ingly remarks,  '*  It  is  most  likely  that  St.  Patrick  had  a spec- 
ial regard  for  the  Church  of  Borne,  from  whence  he  was 
sent  for  the  conversion  of  this  island  ; so  as,  if  I myself  had 
lived  in  his  days,  for  the  resolution  of  a doubtful  question, 

I should  as  willingly  have  listened  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  of  Borne,  as  to  the  determination  of  any  church  in 
the  whole  world ; so  reverent  an  estimation  have  I of  the 
integiitv  of  that  Church  as  it  stood  in  those  days.”  How- 
ever, St.  Patrick  was  not  influenced  by  any  mere  sentiment- 
alism, or  by  any  individual  opinion  as  to  the  just-as-good-as- 
another  qualities  of  the  Church  of  Borne  ; nor  does  he  mere- 
ly express  a willingness  to  submit  to  a Boman  arbitration. 
He  commands  that  difficult  cases  be  referred  to  Borne,  and 
because  that  See  is  that  of  Peter.  This  canon  of  St.  Patrick 
was  obeyed  by  the  Synod  of  Magh-lene  (630),  and  one  of  its 
members,  St.  Cummian,  attests  the  fact : “ In  accordance 
with  the  canon,  that  if  serious  questions  arise,  they  shall  be 
referred  to  the  head  of  cities,  we  sent  such  as  we  knew  were 
wise  and  humble  men,  to  Borne  ” (2).  About  the  year  700, 
a collection  of  canons  for  the  Irish  church  was  compiled,  of 
which  many  MSS.  have  been  preserved.  The  (now)  Nation- 
al Library  of  Paris  has  one  copy  of  the  eighth,  and  one  of 
the  twelfth  century;  Darmstadt  possesses  one  of  the  ninth  ; 1 
St.  Gall  another  very  old  ; the  Vallicellian  Archives  at  Borne  * 
a minuscule  MS.  of  the  tenth  century:  a Cambray  MS.,  of 
the  eighth  century,  gives  us  a copy,  transcribed  by  order  of 
bishop  Alberic  (d.  790) ; and  the  Cottonian  Codex,  also  of 

. v (1)  lieliQion  of  the  Ancient  /;  «</*,  p.  84.  l2)  Usher;  SyUog.  A’j/p..  n.  30. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


304 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  eighth  century,  used  by  Usher,  Wilkins,  Spelman,  and 
others  of  our  opponents,  contain  it  (1).  In  Can.  xx.,  c.  6,  wt 
read  : “ Care  must  be  taken,  that  no  controversies  be  re- 
ferred to  other  provinces  or  churches  which  follow  different 
customs  and  profess  a different  religion  ; or  to  the  .oritons, 
who  are  contrary  to  all,  and  separate  themselves  from  the 
Homan  usages,  and  from  the  unity  of  the  Church  (2)  ; or  to 
heretics,  even  when  they  are  affable,  and  skilled  in  eccle- 
\siastical  causes.  ' ’ And  in  c.  5,  of  the  same  canon,  is  said : 
‘St.  Patrick  enacts  : If  any  grave  questions  arise  in  this 

island,  they  shall  be  referred  to  the  Apostolic  See 

The  Roman  canons  decree,  that  when  the  more  difficult 
questions  arise,  they  are  to  be  referred  to  the  head  city 

The  Roman  Synod  enacts : If  in  any  province 

questions  arise  which  cannot  be  settled  amongst  the  dis- 
putants, let  the  matters  be  referred  to  the  chief  See.”  In 
the  21st  book,  entitled,  “ Method  of  Inquiry  in  Causes,”  the 
course  is  prescribed  to  be  followed  in  matters  of  doubt, 
in  the  very  words  of  Pope  Innocent  I.,  “ Should  the  Scrip- 
tures not  be  sufficiently  clear,  the  inquirer  must  recur  to  the 
doctors  of  the  Church  if  he  is  not  then  satisfied,  “ let  him 
consult  the  canons  of  the  Apostolic  See  ” (3). 

That  the  supremacy  of  Rome  was  acknowledged  by  the 
early  Irish  church,  is  also  proved  by  appeals  to  the  Holy 
See.  Murray,  the  zealous  Protestant  dean  already  quoted, 
could  not  impugn  the  authority  of  the  canons  we  have  just 
cited,  but  he  confidently  asked:  “Now,  supposing  for  one 
moment  that  this  canon  and  decree  were  genuine,  were  they 
ever  acted  upon  before  the  twelfth  century  ? The  ancient 
Irish  Church  on  no  occasion  ever  appealed  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome  ” (4).  This  author,  like  nearly  all  of  his  brethren, 
identifies  the  teaching  of  his  sect  with  that  of  the  early 
Irish,  and  yet  he  says  that  Rome,  at  that  time  was  “ the 
great  centre  of  corrupted  Christianity  ” (5) ; while  the  early 
Irish,  as  we  have  seen,  proclaim  her  the  centre  of  the  true 

(1)  Proceeding  of  R.  I.  A.,  Dec.  8th,  1851. 

(2)  This  reference  to  th  obstinacy  of  the  Britons  in  the  Paschal  Controversy,  shows,  of  Itself, 
the  antiquity  of  this  collection. 

(3)  The  numerous  pilflrrimajres  from  Ireland  to  the  shrine  of  Peter, —Journeys  not  under* 
taken  in  the  spirit  of  the  “ sltrht-seer  ’’—also  indicate  the  belief  of  the  early  Irish  Christiana 
In  the  supremacy  of  the  Holy  See.  See  Moran,  p.  3,  c.  3. 

(4)  Ireland  and  her  Church . v.  29.  (5)  lbL  v.  59. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


305 


faith.  Still  declaring  that  Anglicanism  and  early  Irish 
Catholicism  were  identical,  he  asserts  that  no  appeals  should 
be  made  to  Rome,  while  the  early  Irish  decree  that  it  is  to 
Rome  that  all  difficulties  should  be  carried.  He,  again  like 
nearly  all  of  his  brethren,  exults  in  “ the  corruptions  of  the 
Romish  Church”  (1),  while  the  early  Irish,  though  they  pro- 
hibit appeals  to  heretics,  or  even  to  those  whose  discipline 
varies  from  that  of  Rome,  call  that  See  their  guide.  But 
let  us  investigate  the  accuracy  of  the  assertion  that  “ the 
ancient  Irish  on  no  occasion  ever  appealed  to  the  bishop  of 
Rome.,,  Towards  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  St.  Colum- 
banus  and  a few  companions  left  their  monastery  of  Bangor, 
and  wended  their  way  to  the  continent,  to  gain  new  conquests 
for  God.  The  new  establishments  of  Luxieu  and  Fontaines 
were  soon  among  the  glories  of  Gaul,  but  the  French 
clergy  became  alarmed  at  the  peculiar  usages  of  the  Irish 
monks,  and  especially  at  their  method  of  computation 
of  the  Easter  time.  In  a Synod  held  for  the  purpose,  these 
practices  were  comdemned,  but  Columbanus,  contending 
that  he  had  received  them  from  his  fathers,  appealed  to 
Rome,  to  obtain  a reversion  of  the  adverse  decree.  The  ap- 
peal, which  was  made  to  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  did  not 
reach  its  destination,  and  Columbanus  again  addressed 
4t  the  holy  lord  and  Apostolic  father  in  Christ,  the  Pope,” 
who  was,  at  that  time,  Boniface  IV.,  in  these  words  : “ To 
thee  alone  do  we  pour  out  our  supplications,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  through  the 
unity  of  faith  which  is  common  to  us,  that  thou  mayest 
bestow  upon  us,  laboring  pilgrims,  the  solace  of  thy  holy 
decision,  with  which  thou  willst  strengthen  the  tradition  of 
our  elders,  if  it  be  not  contrary  to  faith ; that  thus  we  may^ 
during  our  pilgrimage,  be  enabled,  through  thy  adjudica- 
tion, to  keep  the  rite  of  Easter  as  it  was  handed  down  to 
us  by  our  fathers  ” (2).  Another  instance  of  an  appeal  to 
Rome  is  furnished,  in  the  eighth  century,  byFerghil  (better 
known  by  his  Latin  name  Virgilius),  abbot  of  Archadhbc 

(1)  Idem. 

(2)  Before  this  appeal  could  be  answered^  St.  Columbanus  bad  fled  from  France,  owln* 
to  the  enmity  of  Brunechlld. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


306 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISIORY. 


(1).  Becoming  a missionary  to  the  then  barbarous  Bavari- 
ans, he  soon  was  associated  with  St.  Boniface, bishop  of  Mentz 
(the  English  apostle  of  Germany),  and  was  made  bishop  of 
Saltzburg  by  Pope  Stephen  II.  Alcuin  composed  a poem 
in  his  honor,  and  called  him  “ pious  and  prudent,  second  in 
piety  to  none  ; ’ his  German  biographers  style  him  “ the 
most  learned  among  the  learned.  ” While  working  with  St. 
Boniface,  a controversy  on  the  essential  form  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Baptism  for  a while  disturbed  their  harmony.  Some 
of  the  clergy,  addicted  probably  to  a barbarous  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  Latin  language,  were  said  to  have  vitiated  the 
form  in  their  utterance,  and  St.  Boniface  declared  that  the 
sacrament  thus  administered  was  invalid.  Ferghih  having 
been  educated  in  the  then  superior  schools  of  Ireland,  seems 
to  have,  more  precisely  than  the  English  bishop,  distin- 
guished between  the  accidentals  and  the  essentials  of  the 
sacramental  form,  and  hence  he  pronounced,  in  the  cases 
alleged,  the  baptisms  valid.  He  appealed  to  the  Holy  See,  and 
his  judgment  was  confirmed.  Still  another  instance  of  appeal 
to  Rome,  or  rather,  of  being  guided  by  the  decisions  of 
Rome,  is  furnished  by  the  Synod  of  Magh-lene  (630),  and 
the  letter  of  St.  Cummian,  of  which  we  have  spoken  in  the 
chapter  on  the  Paschal  question.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill 
volumes  with  proofs  of  the  devotion  and  filial  obedience  * of 
the  early  Irish  church  to  Rome,  but  the  nature  of  our  work 
demands  that  we  be  content  with  a few.  “ To  sum  up,  then, 
in  a few  words,”  to  use  the  language  of  a learned  Irish  ec- 
clesiastic (2),  “no  dissension  on  religious  matters  ever  arose 
in  Ireland,  which  was  not  referred  to  Rome  for  adjudication. 
From  Rome  Ireland  had  her  precepts  of  morality  and  her 
oracles  of  faith.  Rome  was  the  mother,  Ireland  the  daugh- 
ter; Rome  the  head,  Ireland  the  member.  From  Rome,  the 
fountain-source  of  religion,  Ireland  undoubtedly  derived, 
and  with  her  whole  soul  imbibed,  her  faith.  In  doubtful 
matters,  the  Pope  was  the  arbiter  of  the  Irish  ; in  things 
certain,  their  master  ; in  ecclesiastical  matters,  their  head  ; 
in  temporals,  their  defender  ; in  all  things,  their  judge  ; in 

(1)  Tin*  Four  Masfe.-;  re-ord  his  death  : “ In  the  year  7S4,  Ferghtl  the  geometer,  abbot  of 
/r  diadhho,  died  «n  Oemmny  in  rh**  18th  year  oi  hi*  episcopate.*’ 

'Jr.  u h,  i- >*i  of  Kf!!alu,  the  calumnies  of  Gerald  Barry  (Glraldus 

Cambrensisi.  Kdif.  of  CelUe  Society,  1S00.  v.  p. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


307 


everything,  their  adviser  ; their  oracle  in  doubt,  their  bul- 
wark in  the  hour  of  danger.  Some  hastened  to  Rome  to  in- 
dulge their  fervor  at  the  tomb  of  the  Apostles  ; others  to 
lay  their  homage  at  the  feet  of  the  Pope,  and  others  to  ob- 
tain the  necessary  sanction  of  his  authority  for  the  discharge 
of  their  functions.” 

We  shall  now  examine  the  belief  of  the  early  Irisli<;hurch 
as  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  will  prove  that  it  was  that  of 
the  Catholic  Church  of  to-day.  We  shall  then  notice  some 
of  the  arguments  of  our  opponents.  Among  the  many  monu- 
ments of  the  ancient  Irish  church,  which  have  come  down 
to  us,  one  of  the  most  valuable  is  the  Stowe  Missal  (1).  In 
it  the  words  of  consecration  are  given  as  at  present,  and  the 
subsequent  prayers  “ agree  literally  with  the  Roman  Can- 
on down  to  the  Memento  for  the  dead  ” (2).  Thus,  we  find 
the  Irish  of  the  sixth  century  using  with  us  of  the  nineteenth 
the  fpllowing  beautiful  prayer  : “ Humbly  we  beseech  Thee. 
O Almighty  God,  command  this  offering  to  be  carried  by 
the  hands  of  Thy  holy  angel  unto  Thy  heavenly  altar  in  the 
presence  of  Thy  divine  Majesty,  that  all  of  us  who  receive, 
through  the  participation  of  this  altar,  the  most  holy  Body 
and  Blood  of  Thy  Son,  may  be  filled  with  every  heavenly 
blessing  and  grace,  through  the  same  Christ  our  Lord.”  In 
this  same  Missal,  we  find  the  rather  un-Protestant  “ Mass 
of  the  Martyrs,”  “ Mass  of  Virgins,”  “ Mass  for  the  dead.’’ 
Another  valuable  monument  of  early  Irish  doctrine  is  the 
Bobbio  Missal  already  noticed,  and  bequeathed  by  St. 
Columbanus  to  his  Irish  disciples  in  Italy.  Here,  we  read, 
in  the  Daily  Mass,  the  prayer  : kiWe  give  thee  thanks,  O 

holy  Lord,  omnipotent  Father,  eternal  God,  who  hast 
satiated  us  by  the  C mmunion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  Thy  Son”  (3).  In  the  Mass  for  Lent  are  commem- 
orated the  many  blessings  imparted  by  Christ,  “ by  partici- 
pation of  whose  Flesh,  blessed  by  Thee,  we  are  strengthened, 

(1)  The  inscriptions,  yet  remaining  on  the  cover  of  this  Missal,  show  that  it  belonged  to 
some  church  of  Munster,  and  probably  to  the  monastery  of  Lortha,  founded  bvSt.  Ruadhan 
in  the  sixth  century.  The  original  MS.  was  written  in  an  ancient  Lombardic  character, 

“ which,”  says  Todd,  ” may  well  be  deemed  older  then  the  sixth  century it  is  by 

no  means  impossible  that  the  MS.  may  have  been  the  original  Missal  of  St.  Ruadhan  him- 
self. who  died  in  WU.”  See  The  Ancient  Jr  Mi  Mis*al,  Ac.,  by  James  Henthom  Todd,, 
read  before  U.  I.  A.,  June  23d,  1850,  and  printed  from  the  Transactions  of  R.  I.  A.  in  1857. 

(2)  lbU  p.  32.  (3)  Mabillon  ; Italian  Mu*tum%  v.  1. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


308 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  by  drinking  of  whose  Blood  we  are  cleansed  ” (1).  The 
Antiplionary  of  Bangor  is  certainly  of  the  seventh  or  eighth 
century,  and  it  contains  a hymn  beginning  “ Come,  ye 
saints,”  which  plainly  shows  the  doctrine  of  the  early  Irish 
church  on  the  Beal  Presence.  We  give  a literal  transla- 
tion of  some  of  the  stanzas  (2).  “ Come,  O holy  ones,  re- 

ceive the  Body  of  Christ,  drinking  the  Sacred  Blood,  by  which 
jou  were  redeemed.  By  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  all  are  saved  from  the  jaws  of  hell.  In  the 
law  it  was  ordered  to  immolate  victims ; these  divine 
Mysteries  were  prefigured  by  it  Let  all  the  faithful  draw 
near  with  pure  simplicity;  let  them  receive  the  Eternal 
Custodian  of  their  salvation.  He  gives  Heavenly  Bread  to 
the  hungry ; to  the  thirsty,  drink  from  the  living  Fountain. 
The  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Lord  Christ  Himself,  now  comes, 
He  who  is  to  come  to  judge  mankind  ” (3).  The  famous 
•Gaelic  scholar,  Eugene  Curry,  describes,  in  his  valuable  lec- 
tures (4),  a Treatise  on  the  Ceremonies  of  the  Mass,  com. 
tained  in  the  Leabhar  Breac , deposited  in  the  B.  I.  Academy. 
The  following  literal  translation  (the  original  is  in  both 
Latin  and  Gaelic)  of  one  extract,  is  every  pertinent  to  our 
thesis:  “Another  division  of  that  pledge,  which  has  been 
left  to  the  Church  to  comfort  her,  is  the  Body  of  Christ  and 
His  Blood,  which  are  offered  upon  the  altars  of  the  Christ- 
ians. The  Body,  even,  which  was  born  of  Mary,  Immacu- 
late Virgin,  without  destruction  of  her  virginity,  without 
opening  of  the  womb,  without  presence  of  man;  and  which 
was  crucified  by  the  unbelieving  Jews,  out  of  spite  and  en- 
vy, and  which  arose  after  three  days  from  death,  and  sits 
upon  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  in  heaven,  in  glory 

<i)  ibi. 


A ncicii fk/r ii/! urch  ^ versIon’  by  1)61118  Florence  McCarthy,  may  be  found  in  Gaffney’s 

(3)  T^l^ncd  Dr.  Todd,  at  one  time  ranked  In  the  Csherian  school,  but  afterwards  a 
convert  to  Catholicism,  in  his  edition  of  the  '*  Book  of  Hymns  ” for  the  Irish  Arch.  Society, 
claims  for  this  hymn  a higher  antiquity  than  that  of  the  Antiphonary  containing  it.  In  the 
preface  to  the  hymn  of  St.  Sechnall  (Secundinust  on  St.  Patrick,  preserved  in  the  Leabhar 
UrMCiVTQ  read  that  once,  while  Sechnall  was  saying  Mass,  the  apostle  arrived  to  visit 

tbe  Mass.  exoePt  taftn#  the  Body  Christ,  he  heard  that 
Patrick  had  arrived  at  the  Place-  The  preface  goes  on  to  say  that,  leaving  the  altar,  he 
‘‘Vihov  i of  iSt’  uP»yck'  and  when  both  were  approaching  the  church, 

a cb?lr  °*  angels  chanting  a hymn. . . . whose  beginnmgia  'Sancti  venite 

£hpnft ha ^ ^ l?at  fro?  HK  the  Present,  that  hymn  is  chanted  in  Erin 

when  the  Body  of  Christ  is  received.  ’ This  preface,  says  Todd  is  mmnfmi  fmm  tta 

1,6  of  7tb  or  ®tb  century,  and  yet  it  describes  the  hymn  Sancii 
venite  as  having  been  sung,  from  time  immemorial,  in  the  churches  of  Ireland. 

(4)  MS.  Materials  of  Irish  History , p.  376. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


309 


and  in  dignity  before  the  angels  of  heaven ; — it  is  that  Body, 
the  same  as  it  is  in  this  great  glory,  which  the  righteous 
consume  off  God’s  Table,  that  is,  the  holy  Altar.  For  this 
Body  is  the  rich  Viaticum  of  the  faithful,  who  journey 
through  the  paths  of  pilgrimage  and  penitence  of  this  world 
to  the  heavenly  fatherland.  This  is  the  seed  of  the  Resur- 
rection in  life  eternal  to  th  1 righteous.  It  is,  however,  the 
origin  and  cause  of  falling  to  the  impenitent  who  believe 
not,  and  to  the  sensual  who  distinguish  it  not,  though  they  be- 
lieve. Woe,  then,  to  the  Christian  who  distinguishes  not 
this  Holy  Body  of  the  Lord  by  pure  morals,  by  charity, 
And  by  mercy.  For  it  is  in  this  Body  that  will  be  found' 
the  example  of  the  charity  which  excels  all  charity,  viz., 
to  sacrifice  Himself,  without  guilt,  in  satisfaction  for  the 
guilt  of  the  whole  race  of  Adam.’1  To  this  exposition  of 
early  Irish  faith  in  the  Real  Presence,  we  shall  add  a few 
testimonies  from  the  PenitentiaLs  and  other  records.  The 
Penitential  of  St.  Cummian  prescribes  penance  for  those 
who  are  guilty  of  negligence  when  preserving  “ the  Sacrifice  M 
entrusted  to  their  care  (1) ; the  Bobbio  Penitential  (2)  as- 
signs a year’s  penance  to  him  “ who  shall  neglect,  or  lose, 
the  Eucharist,  the  Body  of  the  Lord;”  both  of  these  pas- 
sages show  a belief  in  the  permanent  Presence,  not  a tran- 
sitory one,  in  the  act  of  communion.  The  Penitential  of 
St.  Columbanus  (3),  orders  that  “ Special  diligence  must 
be  used  in  confessing  our  sins  and  imperfections,  before  the 
celebration  of  Mass,  lest  with  an  unclean  heart  we  should 
approach  the  holy  altar.  It  is  better  to  delay  a little,  and 
wait  till  our  heart  be  free  from  scandal  and  envy,  than 
audaciously  to  approach  the  judgment-seat ; for  the  altar  is 
the  tribunal  of  Christ,  and  His  Body,  present  there  with  His 
Blood,  judges  those  who  unworthily  approach.”  The 
ancient  Lives  of  the  early  Irish  saints  are  replete  with 
evidence  that  those  heroes  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence.  Thus  the  Tripartite  Life , which  competent 
judges  assign  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  (4),  represents 
St.  Patrick  as  saying  to  Ethne  and  Fedhelmia,  daughters  of 

(1)  Chap.  13,  n.  5.  (2)  Con.  17. 

(3)  Canon  XI.,  n.  11.  (4)  See  Curry’s  Lectures,  p.  346. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


310 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


king  Leogliaire,  “ Whilst  you  are  clothed  with  mortal  flesh, 
you  cannot  see  the  Son  of  God ; but  to  behold  Him  in  the 
brightness  of  His  majesty,  it  is  necessary  to  lay  aside  this 
corruptible  flesh,  and  first  to  receive  His  Bo  iy  and  Bloody  con- 
ceded in  an  invisible  manner , beneath  the  visible  form  and  spe- 
cies of  bread  and  ivine .”  Probus  ( 1 ) says  that  the  ladies  re- 
plied : “ ‘ Give  us  the  sacrifice  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  that  we  may  be  freed  from  the  corruption  of  the 
flesh,  and  may  see  our  Spouse  who  is  in  heaven.’  Then  SL 
Patrick  celebrated  Mass,  and  both  the  daughters  of  the  king  ap- 
proached the  Communion  with  great  hope  and  perfect  faith.” 
Cogitosus,  an  Irish  writer,  assigned  by  the  Protestant  Petrie 
to  the  commencement  of  the  ninth  century  (2),  gives  a de- 
scription of  the  convent-church  of  Kildare,  in  which  the 
“Mary  of  Erin, *'  St.  Brigid,  was  wont  to  worship.  To  the 
sanctuary  there  were  two  entrances The  one,  through 
which  the  bishop,  with  his  clergy  and  assistants  at  the  al- 
tar, entered,  when  about  to  offer  up  the  Sacred  Sacrifice  of  our 
Lord;  the  second  door  was  at  the  left  side  of  the  altar,  and 
through  it  the  abbess  alone,  with  her  virgins  and  faithful 
widows,  entered,  to  partake  of  the  banquet  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Jesus  Christ  ” (3).  Adam  nan,  successor  of  the  great 
Columbkille  in  the  abbacy  of  Iona  (4),  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, wrote  a Life  of  the  holy  founder,  from  which  we  se- 
lect, among  many  equally  strong  arguments,  the  following 
account  of  a visit  made  to  St.  Columbkille  by  St.  Cronan,  a 
bishop  of  Munster  : “ Through  humility,  he  sought  as  much 
as  possible  to  conceal  himself,  so  that  no  one  might  know 
that  he  was  a bishop.  This,  however,  could  not  be  kept  a 
secret  from  Columba ; for,  when  on  a Sunday  he  was  ordered 
by  St.  Columba  to  consecrate  (the  text  has  the  stronger 
term,  ‘ con  five  re  ’),  according  to  custom,  the  Body  of  Christ, 
he  called  our  saint,  as  a brother  priest,  to  unite  with 
him  in  breaking  the  Bread  of  the  Lord.  Columba,  ap- 
proaching the  altar,  looking  intuitively  into  his  face, 
said  to  him  ; ‘ May  Christ  bless  thee,  O brother  ; do  thou 

(1)  Trias  Thaumat.  (2)  Round  Towers  of  Ireland , p 202. 

(3)  Cogitosus:  Life  of  St.  BrigkU  e.  35. 

(4)  For  m.oiv  years  the  monastery  of  Iona  was  the  main  centre  of  Irish  missionary  enter- 
pr<co  vn rj  t»  »*  r • -<  r of  •v,.*’v»w  and  forelirners  who  aimed  at  the  acquisition  of  leami  :g  and 

Sue  MouruJemeeri's  2 \lonks  of  the 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


311 


follow  the  episcopal  rule,  and  distribute  it  alone  ” (1).  In 
another  memoir  of  St.  Columbkillei  written  by  his  contem- 
porary, Cumineus  Albus  (2),  we  read  that  the  saint  having 
had  a vision  in  which  he  saw  Columbanus,  a bishop  of  Lein- 
ster, summoned  to  judgment,  he  called  his  fellow  monks,  and 
ordered  them  to  prepare  to  offer  the  “ Sacred  Oblation,” 
saying,  * * it  is  my  duty  to  celebrate  the  Sacred  Mysteries  of 
the  Eucharist  for  the  holy  soul  which,  during  the  night, 
passed  to  the  angelic  choirs.”  Cumineus  adds  that  “whilst 
he  was  offering  up  the  Sacred  Mysteries  of  the  Holy  Sacri- 
fice, he  said  to  the  brethren,  ‘ to-day  we  are  to  pray  for  the 
holy  bishop  Columbanus.’  ” St.  Fursa,  another  Irish 
m?ssionary  and  saint,  p,.tron  of  Peronne,  in  France,  died  in 
650.  In  an  ancient  Life  (3),  we  read  that  Fursa  was  pro- 
mised some  supernatural  manifestations  by  an  angel,  and 
that  he  prepared  for  them  “ by  asking  for,  and  partaking  of, 
the  Communion  of  the  Sacred  Body  and  Blood.”  In  the  same 
Life  are  recorded  some  instructions  given  to  Fursa  by  two 
relatives,  Sts.  Beoan  and  Mel! an,  and  in  one  of  them  is 
said  : “ Let  the  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
stimulate  the  faithful  to  tears  of  repentance  for  their  crimes, 
and  strengthen  them  with  the  spiritual  food  of  faith,  and  by 
the  participation  of  the  Sacred  Body  and  Blood.  ’ St.  Colgu 

theWise  ” lived  in  the  eighth  century  (4),  and  was  the  author 
of  many  edifying  treatises.  Among  them  is  a prayer  (5)  in 
Irish,  ‘‘Scuar  Chrabhaigh,”  from  which  we  take  the  follow- 
ing : “ O Holy  Jesus  ! O beautiful  Friend! for  the 

sake  of  the  holy  tree  upon  which  Thy  side  was  torn  ; for  the 
sake  of  the  innocent  Blood,  which  trickled  upon  us  from 
that  tree  ; for  the  sake  of  Thine  own  Body  and  Blood  which 
are  offered  upon  all  the  holy  altars  which  are  in  all  the 
Christian  churches  in  the  world  ;.....  dispense,  give,  and 
bestow,  Thy  holy  grace  and  Thy  holy  Spirit  to  defend  and 
shelter  me,”  Ac.  We  could  proceed  indefinitely  with  sim- 

(1)  The  phrase  Christi  Corynts  conficcrc  is  of  frequent  recurrence  in  liturgical  treatises. 

(2)  In  Mabillon’s  Acta  SS.  Renal .,  v.  1. 

(3>  Usher  judges  that  It  was  composed  before  the  time  of  Bede  (b.  672).  See  Religion  of 
the  Ancient  Irish,  p.  37. 

(4)  He  was  attached  to  the  monastic  school  of  Clonmacnoise.  In  a letter  published  In 
Usher’s  SyUoge , Alcuin  styles  him  “his  blessed  master  and  pious  father.” 

<5)  Curry’s  MS.;  Lectures , p.  37‘J;  Colgan’s  Act,  SS„  p.  378. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


312 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ilar  citations,  but  enough  has  been  given  to  indicate  tho 
mind  of  the  early  Irish  church  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  We  shall  now  devote  a few  moments  to  the 
arguments  of  our  adversaries. 

Usher,  one  of  the  most  respectable,  and  certainly  the 
most  learned,  of  those  Protestants  who  try  to  identify  the 
Anglican  establishment  with  the  early  Irish  church,  ap- 
peals to  the  poet  Sedulius,  Claude,  and  a few  other  Irish 
writers,  to  sustain  his  theory.  Let  us  see  what  comfort  he 
can  derive  from  Sedulius  (1).  This  poet  bore  the  fame  of 
Ireland  to  the  continent  in  the  fifth  century,  and  byhis’ 
Carmen  Paschale  and  its  corresponding  Paschal  Prose , won 
for  himself  a great  reputation.  Usher  asserts  that  this  au- 
thor affirms  that  only  bread  and  wine  are  offered  to  God  in 
the  Eucharist,  and  in  proof,  he  adduces  a passage  from  the 
Poem,  and  one  from  the  Prose.  The  first  reads  : “ Who  else 
presides  as  chief-pontiff  and  high  priest  but  Christ,  institutor 
of  the  two-fold  libation,  of  the  order  of  Melchisedech,  to  whom 
his  own  gifts,  the  fruit  of  the  corn,  and  the  joy  of  the  vine, 
are  always  offered?”  (2)  The  second,  which  Usher  cites  as 
rendering  more  clear  the  meaning  of  the  former,  styles  the 
Eucharist  “ The  sweet  meat  of  the  seed  of  wheat,  and  the 
lovely  drink  of  the  pleasant  vine"  (3).  In  formulating  this 
objection,  the  Protestant  primate  of  Ireland  deliberately 
mutilated  the  text  of  Sedulius,  by  cutting  out  from  the 
second  passage  words  which  are  certainly  too  eloquent  of 
Catholicism  for  Protestant  taste.  The  immediate  context 
reads : “ For  who  but  the  Lord  is  present,  the  Pontiff  of 

pontiffs,  the  Priest  of  priests,  the  Author  and  Founder  of 
the  two-fold  libation,  whose  gifts,  according  to  the  order  of 
Melchisedech,  which  He  offered  for  ns  upon  the  cross , changed 
into  His  own  Flesh , are  the  sweet  meat  of  the  seed  of  wheat, 
and  the  lovely  drink  of  the  pleasant  vine  "(4).  After  noting  the 
dishonesty  of  Usher,  which  is  but  too  usual  with  gentry  of 
his  school,  no  comment  is  necessary,  on  our  part,  to  elicit 

(1)  Pop©  Gelasius  calls  him  “ the  venerable  Sedulius,”  and  commends  his  works  to  the 
faithful.  Venantius  Fortunatus  also  eulogizes  him,  while  St.  Hildephonse  styles  him  •'  an. 
evangelical  poet,  an  eloquent  orator,  and  a Catholic  writer a curious  fact,  if,  as  Usher 
asserts,  Sedulius  was  a Sacramentarian. 

(2)  Paschal  Poem,  b.  4,  r.  306.  (3)  Paschal  Prose,  idem. 

(4)  Poem  b.  5,  v.  889. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


31$ 


the  thorough  Catholicity  of  the  quoted  passages  of  Sedulius. 
But  the  reader  will  please  observe  how  plainly  the  poet 
presents  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist  in  the  follow- 
ing passages  : “All  of  us  who,  under  Christ  our  leader,  are 
regenerated  in  the  fountain  of  waters,  taking  His  Body  and 
Blood,  do  eat  and  drink  thereof  that  we  may  deserve  to 
enjoy  the  Holy  Ghost.”  Another  Sedulius,  an  Irish  com- 
mentator of  the  ninth  century,  is  also  cited  by  the  Anglican 
primate,  but,  if  the  reader  will  carefully  weigh  the  quoted 
words,  he  will  find  that  the  learned  abbot,  so  far  from  broach- 
ing Protestant  ideas,  taught  simple  Catholic  doctrine.  In 
a Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  read : 

*•'  Melchisedech  offered  bread  and  wine  to  Abraham  for  a 
figure  of  Christ,  offering  His  Body  and  Blood  unto  the 
Father  upon  the  cross.”  And  in  another  place  of  the  same 
Commentary,  “ But  we  offer  daily  for  a commemoration  of 1 
the  Lord’s  passion,  once  endured,  and  for  our  own  salvation.”  ^ 
Certainly,  all  Catholics  recognize  in  the  Holy  Sacrifice  a 
commemoration  of  Christ’s  passion,  and  only  Catholics  re- 
joice, with  Sedulius,  that  it  is  everywhere  daily  offered  for  our 
salvation.  Usher  tells  us  that  “else were,  expounding  the 
words  of  our  Saviour,  ‘ Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,’  he 
brings  in  the  similitude  used  before  him  and  after  him  by  1 
others,  ‘ He  left  us  a memorial  of  Himself,  even  as  if  one 
that  was  going  on  a far  journey,  should  leave  some  token  of 
affection  with  a loved  companion  ; that  as  often  as  he  be- 
holds it,  he  may  call  to  mind  his  benefits  and  friendship.’  ” 
To  this  we  reply  that  not  only  Sedulius  uses  this  phrase  ; 
it  is  used  even  by  the  Catholic  Church  (1).  But  in  quoting 
this  phrase,  the  Anglican  publicist  is  again  guilty  of  a trick 
which  is  but  too  common  with  our  adversaries.  He  omits 
the  preceding  words  : “ Take  and  eat ; this  is  my  Body. 
As  if  St.  Paul  said : beware  not  to  eat  that  Body  unworth- 
ily, for  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ.”  With  these  words,  the 
passage  of  Sedulius  becomes  emphatically  Catholic.  Usher 
appeals  also  to  Claudius  as  favorable  to  the  Protestant  the- 
ory, but  to  attain  a semblance  of  success  in  the  estimation  of 
his  credulous  readers,  he  has  recourse  again  to  misre- 

(1 ) Mass  and  Office  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


314 


STUDIES  IN  CHUliCH  HISTOBY. 


presentation.  The  following  passage  is  cited  as  favorable 
to  the  Protestant  tenets  : “ Our  Saviour  wished  first  to  de- 
liver to  His  disciples  the  Sacrament  of  His  Body  and  Blood, 
which  he  presented  in  the  breaking  of  the  Body  (1)  and  the 
effusion  of  the  Chalice  ; and  afterwards  to  immolate  the 
Body  itself  upon  the  altar  of  the  cross.”  No  ordinary  in- 
genuity could  so  manipulate  these  words  as  to  cause  them 
to  evince  the  Protestant  notion  of  the  Eucharist,  yet  Usher 
tells  us  that  herein,  “ Claudius  expressly  distinguishes  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Body,  which  was  delivered  unto  the  dis- 
ciples, from  the  Body  itself,  which  was  afterwards  offered 
upon  the  cross.”  He  certainly  does,  and  so  do  all  Catho- 
lics ; but  nevertheless,  while  Protestants  say  that  the  Euchar- 
ist is  mere  bread  and  wine,  Claudius  says  that  it  is  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ.  Usher  professes  to  inquire  into  the 
belief  of  Claudius  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Eucharist,  and 
yet  ho  says  nothing  of  the  very  chapters  in  which  onr  au- 
thor expressly  treats  of  it.  From  them  we  select  the  fol- 
lowing passages  : “ Whilst  they  were  at  supper,  Jesus  took 
bread,  and  blessed,  and  broke,  and  gave  to  His  disciples, 
saying,  ‘ Take  and  eat ; This  is  my  Body.’  The  ceremonies 
of  the  ancient  Passover  being  at  an  end,  He  passes  to  the 
New  Pasch,  which  he  wished  the  Church  to  observe  as  a 
memorial  of  her  redemption  ; thus,  forsooth,  instead  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  the  lamb y substituting  the  Sacrament  of  His 
own  Flesh  and  Blood , and  showing  Himself  to  be  Him  of 
wlioip.  it  was  written : £ The  Lord  hath  sworn,  nor  shall  he 
repent:  Thou  art  a priest  forever,  according  to  the  order 
of  Melchisedech.’  ” When  speaking  of  our  Lord’s  burial 
in  the  tomb,  Claudius  remarks  : “ We  may,  in  a spiritual 
sense,  learn  from  these  words,  that  the  Body  of  the  Lord  is 
not  to  be  placed  upon  gold,  gems,  or  silk,  but  upon  plain 

linen hence  is  derived  the  custom  of  the  Church,  to 

offer  the  Sacrifice  of  the  altar  not  upon  cloths  of  silk  or  of  rich 
dye,  but  only  upon  simple  linen  cloths,  according  to  the  de- 
cree of  the  blessed  Pope  Sylvester.”  Finally,  in  his  Com- 

(1 ) Usher,  strange  to  say,  is  candid  enough  to  draw  attention  to  the  significant  phrase  “ the 
breaking  of  the  Body,”  saying:  At  first  sight  I did  verily  think  that  in  these  words  an 

error  had  been  committed  in  my  transcript,  J&Wj/  being  miswritten  for  f tread;  but,  after- 
wards, comparing  it  with  the  original,  I found  that  the  author  retained  that  manner  of 
speaking.”  The  Vatican  text  (Codex  Vat.,  3&W,  fol.  119)  confirms  this  reading. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


315 


mentary  on  Leviticus,  Claudius  gives  a beautiful  passage 
which  Usher  has  himself  edited  (1),  but  carefully  avoided  in 
the  present  question:  “ On  the  cross  Christ  rendered  His 
Flesh  eatable  for  us.  For  had  He  not  been  crucified,  the 
Sacrifice  of  His  Body  would  not  be  eaten ; but  now  it  is  eaten 
in  memory  of  the  Lord’s  passion.  Anticipating  the  cross, 
He  immolated  Himself  at  the  supper  with  the  Apostles — 
He  who,  bearing  the  scars  of  His  sufferings,  after  His 
resurrection,  introduced  His  Blood  into  the  tabernacle  of 
heaven.”  Thus,  according  to  Claudius,  the  Flesh  of  Christ 
is  indeed  our  food.  The  Redeemer  offered,  at  the  last 
supper,  a true  Sacrifice  to  His  Father  ; anticipating,  in  a 
sense,  the  Sacrifice  of  the  cross.  And  further,  declares 
Claudius,  this  mysterious  Sacrifice  must  be  referred  to  the 
same  mystery  and  power  by  which  Christ  bore  His  wounds 
into  glory.  There  are  some  other  writers  of  minor  import- 
ance (2),  cited  by  Usher,  but  our  limits  compel  us  to  con- 
clude this  paragraph  with  a notice  of  an  objection  founded 
upon  some  supposed  sayings  of  the  celebrated  Scotus 
Erigena  (3).  Usher  asserts  that  Scotus  Erigena  was  the 
author  of  a tract  entitled  “ The  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Lord,”  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Vercelli  in  1049,  but 
the  able  editor  of  his  works,  Henry  Joseph  Floss  (1853), 
having  searched  the  archives  of  Europe,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  treatise  condemned  at  Vercelli  was  the 
work,  not  of  the  Irish  writer,  but  of  Ratramn  or  Bertram,  a 
monk  of  Corbie,  an  author  of  whom  we  shall  take  occasion 
to  speak  when  treating  of  the  religious  belief  of  the  early 
Anglo-Saxon  church.  Berengarius,  the  Sacramentarian 

(1)  SyUog.  Epp.„  No.  30. 

(2)  Among  these  Is  the  Transcript  of  the  Gospels,  with  an  Interlinear  commentary  made  f 
by  an  Irish  scribe  called  Maelbrigbte.  The  first  to  allege  this  MS.  In  support  of  Protestant- 
ism was  John  O’Toolan  of  Derry  (better  known  by  the  name  Toland,  which  he  assumed  af- 
ter he  had  renounced  faith,  family,  and  country  ) an  apostate  of  the  last  century.  Dr.  Moran, 
In  his  Essay  on  the  Eucharistic  doctrine  of  the  Irish  Church,  gives  an  admirable  refutation 
of  O’Toolan’s  arguments. 

(3)  John  Scotus  Erigena,  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  great  Franciscan  doctor,  John 
Duns  Scotus,  born  at  Dunstone  In  England,  was  an  Irish  writer  of  the  ninth  century,  who 
mode  quite  a stir  during  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Bald.  It  is  the  fashion  with  Protestants 
to  style  him  a learned,  solid,  and  brilliant  theologian,  and  an  eminent  philosopher.  Thus 
Mosheim,  ifurt.,  9th  Cent.,  p.  2,  c.  1,  and  pcussim  bestows  upon  him  eulogies  which  he  gives, 
to  no  Father  of  the  Church ; and  this  simply  because  he  is  supposed  to  have  attacked  the 
Catholic  faith  in  the  Real  Presence.  As  to  the  truth  of  this  accusation,  we  can  only  judge 
by  the  opinion  of  his  contemporaries,  for  none  of  his  Eucharistic  writings  have  reached  us. 
According  to  his  contemporaries  Erigena  was  a subtle  and  daring  sophist,  with  much 
profane  erudition,  but  with  but  little  knowledge  of  Scripture  or  tradition ; infected  with 
Pelaglanism  and  Origenlsm,  and  even  with  the  impieties  of  the  Collyridians  (Arabian  her- 
etics of  the  first  centuries,  who  paid  divine  honors  to  the  Blessed  Virgin). 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


316 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


leader  of  the  eleventh  century,  certainly  attributed  the  tract 
to  Erigena,  but,  in  the  absence  of  corroborating  proof  of  its 
authenticity,  we  may  well  suppose  that  the  French  heretic 
fraudulently  procured  the  protection  of  a great  name.  We 
know  that  the  Irish  author  was  requested  by  the  French 
clergy  to  oppose  the  teachings  of  Paschasius  Radbertus, 
and  that  the  whole  controversy  then  in  agitation  \yas  not  in 
regard  to  the  reality  of  Christ  s presence  in  the  Eucharist, 
but  about  the  manner  in  which  it  was  affected  ; about,  also, 
not  the  fact  of  Christ’s  Body  being  present,  but  whether  or 
not  identity  could  be  asserted  of  the  natural  and  the  Sac- 
ramental Body.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  Erigena 
would  have  remained  in  favor  at  the  French  court,  or  that 
Anastasius  the  Librarian  would  have  eulogized  him,  had  he 
rejected  Catholic  doctrine.  His  contemporaries  accuse  him 
of  Semipelagianism  and  Pantheism,  and  in  such  of  his  works 
as  have  reached  us,  some  obscure  passages  seem  to  give  col- 
or to  the  imputation.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  Berengarius 
and  his  disciples  are  accused  of  corrupting  and  distorting 
the  sayings  of  Erigena — an  old  dodge  of  heretics,  and  one 
continued  in  more  modern  times,  as  we  have  noticed  in  the 
case  of  the  Anglican  primate  of  Armagh.  At  any  rate, 
Usher  can  produce  no  authenticated  saying  of  John  Scotus 
Erigena,  which  militates  against  the  doctrine  of  Transub- 
stantiation.  At  best,  he  can  only  cite  the  condemnation  by 
a Catholic  Synod  of  a tract  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  im- 
puted to  this  author,  and  conclude  that  this  condemnation 
is  prima  facie  evidence  th&t  he  taught  what  is  now  Protestant 
doctrine — a conclusion  which'  is  entirely  too  sweeping,  and 
not  logically  proceeding  from  fclie  premises. 

Of  the  few  points  of  doctrine  in  which  all  Protestant  sects 
agree,  one  is  that  veneration  of  the  saints,  and  the  practice 
of  asking  their  prayers,  should  be  rejected.  It  will  be  in- 
teresting to  note  the  teaching  of  the  early  Irish  church  on 
this  subject.  Preserved  in  the  Leabhar  Breac , which  the 
Protestant  Petrie  (1)  calls  “ the  oldest  and  best  MS.  relat- 
ing to  Church  history  now  preserved  (in  Ireland),  or  which, 
perhaps,  the  Irish  ever  possessed,”  is  an  ancient  Litany  of 

(1/  i/iM,  and  of  Jam . published  from  the  Transactions  of  the  It.  I.  A.,  1839. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


faith:  preached  by  st.  Patrick. 


317 


the  Blessed  Virgin,  which  Curry  pronounces  “ as  old,  at 
least,  as  the  middle  of  the  8th  century.”  From  among  sixty 
titles  which  Protestants  would  deem  extravagant,  we 
select  the  following:  O Great  Mary,  Greatest  of  Women, 

Queen  of  Angels,  Mistress  of  the  Heavens,  Mother  of  the 
Heavenly  and  Earthly  Church,  Gate  of  Heaven,  Cleansing 
of  Sin,  Star  of  the  Sea,  Mother  of  Christ,  Destruction  of 
Eve’s  Disgrace,  Sanctuary  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Queen  of 
Life.”  And  among  the  prayers  attached  to  this  Litany,  are 
the  following  : “ Let  our  devotion  and  our  sighs  be  carried 
through  thee  to  the  presence  of  the  Creator,  for  we  are  not 
ourselves  worthy  of  being  heard,  because  of  our  evil  de- 
serts. 0 Powerful  Mistress  of  Heaven  and  Earth,  dissolve 
our  trespasses  and  our  sins  ; destroy  our  wickedness  and 
our  corruptions ; raise  the  fallen,  the  debilitated,  and  the 
s fettered ; loose  the  condemned  ; repair  through  thyself  the 
transgressions  of  our  immoralities  and  our  vices ; bestow 
upon  us  through  thyself  the  blossoms  and  ornaments  of 
good  actions  and  virtues  ; appease  for  us  the  Judge  by  thy 
voice  and  thy  supplications  ; allow  us  not  to  be  carried  off 
from  thee  among  the  spoils  of  our  enemies ; allow  not  our 
souls  to  be  condemned,  but  take  us  to  thyself  forever,  un- 
der thy  protection  ” (1).  In  the  Bobbio  Missal  there  is  a 
Mass  in  honor  of  Mary  for  her  general  feasts,  and  another  for 
the  Assumption.  In  the  former,  we  read  the  following  pray- 
er : “ Hear  us,  O Lord,  Holy  Father,  All-powerful  God,  who 
i by  the  overshadowing  of  the  womb  of  Blessed  Mary,  didst 
deign  to  illumine  the  whole  world  ; we  suppliantly  pray 
Thy  Majesty  that  what  we  cannot  acquire  by  our  merits,  we 
may  obtain  through  her  protection  We  beseech  Thee,  too, 

O Lord,  that  the  joys  of  Blessed  Mary  may  accompany  us, 
and  by  her  merits  may  the  handwriting  of  our  sin  be  can- 
celled.’’ In  the  latter  Mass,  the  soul  of  Mary  is  said  to  be 
“ wreathed  with  various  crowns ; the  Apostles  render  sacred  | 
homage  to  her,  the  angels  intone  their  canticles,  Christ  em- 
braces her,  the  clouds  are  her  chariot,  paradise  her  house, 
where,  decked  with  glory,  she  reigns  amid  the  virgin-choirs.” 

(1)  This  old  Irish  Litany  was  : o pleasing  to  our  late  beloved  Pontiff,  Plus  IX.,  that  he 
attached  an  indulgence  of  100  days  to  Its  recitation. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


318 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


The  Canon  of  this  Mass  also  gives  the  usual  commemoration: 
“ Venerating,  in  the  first  place,  the  memory  of  the  ever-vir- 
gin  Mary,  Mother  of  our  Lord  and  God,  Jesus  Christ.” 
The  devotion  of  the  early  Irish  to  St.  Brigid  also  illustrates 
their  love  and  veneration  for  Mary.  St.  Brigid,  or  Bridget, 
is  called  the  wonder  of  womankind,  but  the  climar  of  praise 
is  reached  when  they  say  that  she  is  “ like  unto  the  Mother 
of  God/'  What  Mary  is  for  the  whole  Church,  Bridget 
seems  to  be  fpr  Ireland  ; in  fine,  the  latter  is  “ the  Mary  of 
the  Irish,”  as  many  of  the  olden  records  explicitly  style 
her.  The  Litany  of  St.  J3ngus,  admitted  by  all  Irish 
scnolars  to  be  a composition  of  the  eighth  century,  begins: 
“ The  three  times  fifty  Roman  pilgrims  who  settled  in  Ui- 
Mele;  I invoke  to  my  aid  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  three 
thousand  father  confessors  who  met  in  Munster  to  consider 
one  question;  I invoke,  &c.  The  other  thrice  fifty  pilgrims 
of  the  men  of  Rome  and  Latium,  who  went  into  Scotland  ; 
I invoke,  <fcc.  The  thrice  fifty  Gaedhils  of  Erin  in  holy  or- 
ders, each  of  them  a man  of  strict  rule,  who  went  in  one 
body  into  pilgrimage,  under  Abban,  the  son  of  Ua-Cormaic, 
I invoke,  &o.v  The  mind  of  the  early  Irish  church  on  this 
point  is  also  shown  by  the  ancient  Book  of  Kells , of  which 
the  learned  Protestant  Westwood,  an  undoubted  judge  of 
Irish  MSS.,  says  (1):  “Ireland  may  justly  be  proud  of  the 
Book  of  Kells.  This  copy  of  the  Gospels,  traditionally  as- 
serted to  have  belonged  to  St.  Columba,  is  unquestionably 
the  most  elaborately  executed  manuscript  of  early  art  now 
in  existence  ; far  excelling,  in  the  gigantic  size  of  the  let- 
ters in  the  frontispieces  of  the  Gospel,  the  excessive  mi- 
nuteness of  the  ornamental  details,  the  number  of  its  dec- 
orations the  fineness  of  the  writing,  and  the  endless  variety 
of  initial  capital  letters,  with  which  every  page  is  ornament- 
ed, the  famous  Gospel  of  Lindisfarne  (2)  in  the  Cottonian 

Library The  verso  of  fol.  7,  contains  the  di  awing  of 

the  Virgin  and  Child,  copied  in  plate  1,  which  is  inclosed 
within  a highly  elaborate  border  composed  of  interlined 
lacertine animals  with  dogs'  heads.  This  singular composi- 

rl)  Sacred  Palaeography. 

(3)  The  monastery  of  Lindisfarne  was  founded  toy  Irish  monks  from  Iona, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  8T.  PATRICK. 


319 


tion  is  interesting  from  the  proof  it  affords  of  the  venera- 
tion of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  early  Irish  church ; the 
large  size  in  which  she  is  represented,  as  well  as  the  * glory  ’ 
around  her  head  (which  singularly  bears  three  small 
crosses),  evidently  indicating  the  high  respect  with  which 
the  Mother  of  Christ  was  regarded.”  In  the  Antiphonary 
of  Bangor , a MS.  of  the  eighth  century,  is  contained  a hymn, 
written,  we  are  distinctly  told,  by  Sechnall.  “a  nephew  of 
St  Patrick.”  In  it  we  read  the  prayer : “Patrick,  bishop, 
pray  for  all  of  us,  that  our  sins  may  be  completely  wiped 
away.” 

That  auricular  confession  was  practised  among  the  early 
Irish,  is  not  denied  by  any  author  of  note.  Usher  admits 
that  “ they  did,  no  doubt,  both  publicly  and  privately,  make 
confession  of  their  faults,  as  well  that  they  might  receive 
counsel  and  direction,  as  that  they  might  be  made  partakers 

of  the  benefit  of  the  keys Sure  we  are  that  this  was  the 

practice  of  the  ancient  Scottish  and  Irish”  (1).  We  there- 
fore pass  to  another  distinctively  Catholic  doctrine,  that  of 
Purgatory  and  prayers  for  the  dead,  in  order  to  see  whether, 
on  this  matter  at  least,  the  early  Irish  Christians  agreed 
with  our  separated  brethren.  We  have  already  alluded  to 
the  Bobbio  Missal.  In  this  monument  of  the  early  Irish 
church,  certainly  of  the  sixth  century,  and  probably  used  by 
St.  Columbanus  himself,  there  are  various  prayers  to  God, 
“ for  the  pardon  of  the  deceased,”  and  for  the  remission  of 
their  sins.  Thus,  in  a “ Mass  for  the  Dead,”  we  read : “ Grant, 
O Lord,  to  Thy  deceased  servant  the  pardon  of  his  sins,  in 
that  secret  receptacle  where  there  is  no  opportunity  of  do- 
ing penance.  And  do  Thou,  0 Christ,  receive  the  soul  of 
Thy  servant,  and  pardon  his  offences  more  fully  than  he  for- 
gave those  who  offended  him.”  And  in  a “ Mass  for  Living 
and  Dead,”  we  read  : “ Mercifully  grant  that  this  Sacred  Ob- 
lation may  procure  pardon  for  the  dead,  and  may  promote 
the  salvation  of  the  living.”  But  what  better  proof  of  this 
practice  of  praying  for  the  4ead  can  be  asked  than  that  fur- 
nished by  the  tombs  of  the  dead  ? About  sixty  years  ago, 

(I)  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Irirt,  c.  A 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


320 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY* 


We  learn  from  the  Protestant  Petrie  (1),  was  discovered  the 
tomb  of  St.  Breccan,  founder  of  the  monastery  of  Ardbraccan, 
Meath,  in  the  sixth  century.  He  had  retired  to  the  island 
of  Arran,  and  was  there  interred,  in  a church  of  his  found- 
ation. Within  the  sepulchre  was  found  a small  block  of 
limestone  ; on  it  was  carved  a cross,  and  the  inscription  : “ A 
prayer  for  Breccan  the  pilgrim.”  At  Monasterboice,  near 
Drogheda,  are  three  large  Irish  crosses,  of  which  Wilde 
says  : “ they  have  been  not  only  the  great  boast  of  Irish  anti- 
quaries, but  have  frequently,  and  in  glowing  terms,  elicited  the 
admiration  of  foreigners.  With  the  exception  of  the  great 
cross  at  Clonmacnoise,  and  one  which  we  ourselves  recently 
exhumed  near  the  cathedral  of  St.  Breccan  in  the  great  is- 
land of  Arran,  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in  Great  Britain, 
or  perhaps  in  Europe,  either  in  magnitude,  design,  or  ex- 
ecution, to  compare  with  two  at  least  of  the  crosses  at  Mon- 
asterboice   the  various  compartments  contain  figures 

of  the  Apostles,  the  Virgin  and  Child,  and  some  of  our  Irish 

saints inferior  in  point  of  size,  but  eminently  superior 

in  artistic  design  and  execution,  is  the  second  crucial  monu- 
ment, which  we  know,  from  an  Irish  inscription  on  its  base, 
was  erected  by  Abbot  Muiredach — ‘ A prayer  for  Muiredach, 
by  whom  this  cross  was  made.’  ” As  there  were  only  two 
abbots  of  this  name,  one  of  whom  died  in  844,  and  the  other 
in  924,  the  cross  must  be  the  work  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century  (2).  In  the  year  924,  died  Colman,  abbot  of  Clon- 
macnoise, the  great  monastery  founded  by  St.  Kiaran  in  547 
(3).  He  erected  the  cross  alluded  to  in  the  previous  quota- 
tion. Its  only  inscription,  unlike  the  fulsome  eulogies  of 
modern  times,  is  “ A prayer  for  Colman,  who  made  this  cross 
on  the  King  Flann.  A prayer  for  Flann,  son  of  Maelsech- 
lain.”  The  cross  of  Tuam,  erected  in  the  beginning  of  the 
twelfth  century,  bears  this  inscription  : “ A prayer  for  Tur- 
lock O’Connor,  for  the  Abbot  of  J arlath,  by  whom  was  made 
this  cross.  A prayer  for  O Ossin,for  the  Abbot  by  whom  it 
was  made.  A prayer  for  the  successor  of  Jarlath,  for  Aed 

<1)  Round  Towers;  Transact  ions  of  Royal  Irish  Academy , v 20,  p.  138. 

<2)  See  Ancient  Irish  Church , by  Rev.  James  Gaffney,  Dublin,  1883. 

(3)  Four  Masters  ; v.  1. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


321 


O'Ossin,  by  whom  was  made  this  cross.’ * These  testimonies 
were  not  sufficiently  conclusive  for  Usher.  Like  Bingham 
in  the  case  of  the  early  Saxon  church  (1),  he  discovered  that 
the  early  Irish  did  not  offer  prayers  as  a propitiation  for  the 
dead,  but  as  a thanksgiving  for  the  happiness  which  they  be- 
lieved to  be  already  the  lot  of  the  dead.  “ Neither  the  com- 
memoration, says  he  (2),  nor  the  praying  for  the  dead,  nor 
the  Requiem  Masses,  has  any  necessary  relation  to  Purga- 
tory, because  they  are  merely  thanksgiving.”  But  we  have 
seen.  r.  gm,  ii  the  Bobbin  Missal,  prayers  to  God  for  the 
pardon  of  the  deceased,”  and  Usher  exposes  his  own  bad 
faith  by  quoting  the  following  : ‘*  Magnus  said,  on  his  death- 
bed. to  his  friend  Tozzo,  bishop  of  Ausboro,  ‘Do  not  wfeep 
because  thou  bekoldest  me  laboring  in  so  many  storms  of 
worldly  troubles,  because  I believe  in  the  mercy  of  God  that 
my  soul  shall  rejoice  in  the  freedom  of  immortality ; yet  I 
beseech  thee,  that  thou  wilt  not  cease  to  help  me,  a sinner,  and 
my  soul,  with  thy  holy  prayers.’  ” (3) 

On  Feb.  20th,  1857,  the  Irish  Justice  Keogh  delivered  the 
following  opinion : “ It  was  not,  as  some  vulgarly  suppose, 
a fact  that  priests  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  were  never 
allowed  to  marry — that  celibacy  was  always  enjoined  in 
the  Church.  It  was  a fact  that,  down  to  a late  period, 
priests  and  bishops  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  were  al- 
lowed to  marry,  and  did  marry.  To  the  year  1015,  priests 
were  allowed  to  marry,  and  the  vow  of  celibacy  was  not 
required  until  the  year  1076”  (4).  If  the  reader  is  disposed 
to  doubt  the  historical  accuracy  of  Mr.  Justice  Keogh,  he 
must  know  that  the  great  English  lawyer,  Lord  Coke,  in 
his  chapter  on  Ireland,  in  the  4th  Institute,  informs  us  that 
in  a “ synod  liolden  in  Ireland  by  St.  Patrick,  their  apostle, 
it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  Irish  priests  should  have 
wives  ” (5).  When  we  come  to  treat  of  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Keogh’s  knowledge  of  eccle- 
siastical history  is  greatly  at  fault,  and  that,  whatever  Coke 

(1)  See  our  chapter  on  Conversion  of  England. 

(?)  Religion  of  Ancient  Irish , p.  28. 

(8)  I hi. 

(4)  Case  of  beamish  vs.  Beamish. 

(5)  Whiteside,  M.  P.,  quoted  by  Gaffney,  loc.  cit. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


322 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


may  hay©  known  of  English  law,  his  proficiency  in  Irish 
church  history  was  no  greater  than  that  of  the  Irish  judge. 
But  even  though  it  were  shown  that  the  early  Irish  church 
tolerated  a married  clergy,  as  some  of  the  churches  in  com- 
munion with  Rome  still  do,  and  always  have  done,  modern 
Protestants  could  not  claim  that  Irish  church  as  their  own. 
Clerical  celibacy  is  a matter  of  discipline,  and  not  of  faith. 
With  regard  to  the  discipline  of  the  early  Irish  in  this 
matter,  a learned  Protestant  writer  (1)  says  : “ The  idea  of 
the  necessity  or  paramount  importance  of  celibacy,  as  a rule 
for  the  clergy,  prevailed  at  a very  early  period  in  most  parts 
of  the  church,  and  although  * from  the  beginning  it  was  not 
so,’  yet  few  instances  of  the  contrary  can  be  cited  from  our 
ancient  writers  ; so  that  the  general  practice  of  our  fore- 
fathers in  this  matter  would  appear  to  have  been  pretty 
much  in  accordance  with  the  law  which  was  afterwards  in- 
troduced.” In  another  place  (2),  the  same  author  says : 
“ We  would  guard  our  readers  against  errors,  and  not  lead 
them  to  suppose  that  the  Irish  Christians  of  the  seventh 
century  agreed  more  nearly  with  ourselves  than  they  really 
did,  according  to  the  accounts  given  of  them  in  ancient  his- 
tories. There  are  points  connected  with  Columbanus — 
such,  for  instance,  as  his  views  concerning  vows  and  mon- 
astic celibacy, — which  mark  a clear  distinction  between  his 
system  and  our  own.”  We  shall  say  nothing  about  the 
Irish  monastic  rule  in  reference  to  celibacy,  for  no  one 
denies  that,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  countries,  strict  continency 
was  enjoined  upon  monks  and  nuns.  But  we  propose  to 
show  that,  in  the  early  Irish  church,  the  secular  clergy 
were  not  allowed  to  marry.  In  the  Bobbio  Missal,  the 
following  canon  is  sufficiently  explicit : “ ]f  any  cleric  of 

the  higher  grade,  who  has  had  a wife,  should,  after  his  ele- 
vation, live  with  her  again,  let  him  know  that  he  commits 
adultery.”  Certainly  if  one,  married  before  his  priesthood, 
was  obliged  to  leave  his  wife,  one  already  ordained  could 
not  marry.  There  is  extant  a treatise  by  St.  Columbanus 
on  the  “ Measure  of  Penances,”  in  which  the  20th  clause 
reads  : “ If  any  cleric  or  deacon,  or  one  in  any  orders,  who 

(1)  Ret.  B.  King  ; Church  History , t;.  I,  p.  sro.  (2)  JW,  p.  816. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


32» 


has  been  a layman  in  the  world  with  sons  and  daughters, 
should,  after  giving  himself  to  God,  again  live  with  his  wife 
and  beget  a son  of  her,  let  him  know  that  he  has  committed 
adultery,  and  has  fallen  into  as  great  a sin  as  though  he 
had  been  a cleric  from  his  youth,  and  had  communicated 
with  a girl  to  whom  he  was  not  married  ; because  he  has 
offended  after  his  vow , and  alter  his  consecration  to  God, 
and  he  has  made  void  his  vow.  Therefore,  for  seven  years 
he  shall  do  penance  on  bread  and  water.”  In  the  Peni- 
tential of  Cummian  there  is  a canon  as  follows : “ If  any 
cleric  or  monk,  after  having  vowed  himself  to  God,  should 
secularize  himself,  or  should  take  a wife,  let  him  do  pen- 
ance for  ten  years,  three  of  them  on  bread  and  water,  and 
let  him  never  again  know  the  woman.  If  he  disobeys,  a 
Synod  or  the  Apostolic  See  will  separate  him  from  the 
communion  and  association  of  Catholics.”  In  the  ye^r  1186, 
a Synod  was  held  in  Dublin,  and  the  following  canon  was 
enacted,  in  consequence  of  the  iniquities  of  some  of  the  An- 
glo-Norman clergy  in  the  train  of  the  invaders:  “Since 

the  clergy  of  Ireland,  among  other  virtues,  have  been  al- 
ways remarkably  eminent  for  their  chastity,  and  it  would  be 
ignominious  if  they  should  be  corrupted  through  his  (the 
archbishop  s)  negligence,  by  the  foul  contagion  of  strangers, 
and  the  example  of  a few  incontinent  men,  he  therefore  for- 
bids, under  the  penalty  of  losing  both  office  and  benefice, 
any  priest,  deacon,  or  subdeacon,  to  keep  any  woman  in  his 
house,  under  the  pretence  of  necessary  services,  or  for  any 
other  reason  whatsoever,  unless  a mother,  own  sister,  or 
a person  whose  age  would  remove  all  suspicion  of  any  un- 
lawful intercourse.”  It  is  remarkable  that  Gerald  Barry 
( Cambrewis ).  an  English  priest,  who  was  present  at  this 
Synod,  and  who  wielded  one  of  the  most  slanderous  pens 
that  ever  wrote  against  Ireland,  when  treating  of  the  Irish 
clergy,  said  : The  clergy  of  this  country  are  very  com- 

mendable for  religion,  and  among  the  many  virtues  which 
distinguish  them,  their  prerogative  of  chastity  is  pre- 
eminent.'’ These  testimonies  are  certainly  sufficient  to  show 
that  the  early  Irish  church  held  views  upon  clerical  con- 
tinence, very  different  from  those  of  Protestants.  It  would 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


324 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


be  interesting  to  compare  the  practice  of  this  church  with 
that  of  the  reformed  sects,  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  sign 
of  the  cross ; to  note  the  sharp  contrast  between  the  for- 
mer's devout  belief  in  the  perpetuation  of  miraculous 
powers  in  the  Church,  and  the  latter  gentry’s  quiet  con- 
sent as  to  the  utter  cessation  of  such  gifts  since  the  days 
of  the  Apostles  But  enough  has  been  said  to  prove  the 
utter  Romanism  of  the  early  Irish  Christians. 

In  the  course  of  this  chapter,  we  frequently  have  had  oc- 
casion to  refer  to  the  celebrated  monastery  founded  by  St. 
Columbanus,  at  Bobbio  in  Italy.  After  this  saint  had 
founded  many  seminaries  of  sanctity  and  learning  in  France 
and  Germany,  he  went,  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, into  Italy,  with  the  design  of  fixing  there  his  perma- 
nent abode.  His  native  island  owed  her  first  apostles  to 
Italy,  and  now,  when  the  peninsula  had  fallen  upon  evil 
times,  she  was  destined  to  receive  some  comfort  from  the 
children  of  Erin.  It  was  an  epoch  of  wars  and  of  every 
kind  of  tumult,  hence  the  lover  of  prayer  and  of  study  es- 
tablished his  new  monastery  in  the  solitudes  of  northern 
Liguria,  at  the  head  of  the  valley  of  the  Trebbia.  In  this 
quiet  retreat,  Columbanus  and  his  followers  helped  to  stem 
the  tide  of  barbarism,  and  prepared  for  future  ages  a large 
number  of  literary  treasures.  By  the  labor  of  their  hands 
these  monks  procured  their  food,  and  turned  their  Adpine 
desert  into  a fruitful  region.  In  a few  years  after  the  death 
of  their  holy  founder  (615),  the  monks  of  Bobbio  numbered 
a hundred  and  forty  ; crowds  of  people  clustered  around 
the  sanctuary  for  protection  and  comfort,  and  by  the  year 
1014,  the  little  settlement  had  become  an  episcopal  city 
(1).  St.  Columbanus  brought  to  his  Italian  home  a number 
of  codices  which  became  the  nucleus  of  a famous  library ; 
among  the  books  which  formerly  belonged  to  it  are  many 
Saxon  and  Gaelic  MSS.  of  the  6th  and  7th  centuries.  For 
several  centuries  the  monks  were  occupied  in  transcribing 
codices,  and  whenever  one  of  their  number  went  to  Rome, 
he  returned  with  an  assortment  of  good  books.  When  the 
many  benefactors  of  the  monastery  wished  to  make  it  a spec- 

(1)  Uqhelli  ; Sacred  Italy , IV .,  936.  Rossetti  ; Bobbio  Illustrated. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


325 


ially  valuable  present,  rare  codices  were  sure  to  oe  chosen. 
Among  such  benefactors,  the  names  of  Dungal,  Smaragdus, 
and  Agilulph  are  eminent,  and  they  are  found  written  on 
many  of  the  old  MSS.  By  the  tenth  century  the  library  of 
Bobbio  had  become  one  of  the  largest  in  Europe.  “ To 
form  an  idea,”  says  the  learned  Barnabite,  Vercellone  (1), 
“of  the  literary  wealth  of  the  monastery  of  Bobbio,  it  is 
enough  to  know  that,  during  the  last  three  centuries,  no 
other  library  has  furnished  more  abundant  material  to  the 
researches  of  scholars  ; no  other  has  preserved  so  many 
texts  of  ancient  classics,  sacred  and  profane.  And  to  speak 
only  of  our  own  time,  codices  coming  from  Bobbio  have  giv- 
en us  the  Republic  of  Cicero,  and  additional  fragments  of  his 
Orations ; Marcus  Aurelius,  Symmachus,  the  Ante-Justinian 
Code,  the  codex  of  Theodosius,  the  Sermons  of  Si  Augustine, 
fragments  of  the  version  of  Ulfila,  the  apocryphal  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  (2),  and  many  other  very  precious  works 
which  had,  for  a long  time,  been  sought  for  in  vain.  This 
library  alone,  nay,  merely  the  relics  of  this  one  library, 
have  given  their  most  precious  codices  to  the  most  celebrat- 
ed of  modern  libraries,  the  Vatican,  the  Ambrosian,  those 
of  Turin,  Naples,  and  Vienna.  This  one  fact  will  enable 
you  to  judge  of  what  the  library  of  Bobbio  must  have  been, 
in  its  palmy  days.  These  immense  literary  riches,  accumu- 
lated by  the  monks  during  three  centuries,  were  afterwards 
guarded  during  the  dark  ages  in  a manner,  rather  unique 
than  rare.  If  I were  asked  the  reason  of  this  singular  fact, 
I could  only  give  one  based  on  the  condition  of  the  locality. 
It  is,  so  to  say,  isolated  from  the  rest  of  Italy,  being  almost 
buried  in  the  mountains, .......  Again,  there  was  not,  or 

we  do  not  know  that  there  was,  anything  in  the  monastery 
likely  to  excite  the  cupidity  of  the  barbarians  who  often  de- 
vastated, from  one  end  to  the  other,  our  too  beautiful  pen- 
insula. Hence,  while  ignorance  and  barbarism  scattered  or 
destroyed  all  the  other  libraries  of  the  world,  that  of  Bob- 
bio remained  hidden  and  almost  forgotten,  and  was  enabled, 

(1)  Discourse  on  a certain  Bobbio  Palimpsest,  read  in  the  Pontifical  Ttberine  Academy, 
Bome^April  22,  18:11,  and  printed  in  the  Arcadian  Journal , new  series,  vol.  28 ; Academ- 
ic Dissertations.  Rome,  1804. 

(2)  See  Mai  ; New  Libraru  of  the  Fathers , v.  1,  p.  XIX.;  Ceriaxi  ; Sacred  and  Pro- 
fane  Monuments , Milan,  1861. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


326 


STUDIES  IN  CHUitCH  H1ST0KT. 


to  our  great  profit,  to  preserve  the  incomparable  treasures; 
of  ancient  wisdom  which  the  wise  industry  of  the  monks 
had  deposited  there.”  Bobbio  is  certainly  one  of  the  glories 
of  Italy,  and  it  was  long  after  the  time  of  Columbanus  and 
his  Irish  brethren  that  it  attained  its  greatest  fame.  But 
still  it  was  Irish  ze  il  for  the  faith  preached  by  St.  Patrick 
that  laid  the  foundation  of  that  fame.  “ From  the  moment 
that  this  green  Erin,”  says  Montalembert  (1),  “ situated  at 
the  extremity  of  the  known  world,  had  seen  the  sun  of  faith 
rise  upon  her,  she  had  vowed  herself  to  it  with  an  ardent 
and  tender  devotion,  which  became  her  very  life.  The 
course  of  ages  has  not  interrupted  this  ; the  most 
bloody  and  implacable  of  persecutions  has  not  shaken 
it ; the  defection  of  all  northern  Europe  has  not  led 
her  astray  ; and  she  maintains  still,  amid  the  splendor 
and  miseries  of  modern  civilization  and  Anglo-Saxon  supre- 
macy, an  inexhaustible  centre  of  faith,  where  survives,  along^ 
with  the  completest  orthodoxy,  that  admirable  purity  of 
manners  which  no  conqueror  and  no  adversary  has  ever  been 
able  to  dispute,  to  equal,  or  to  diminish.  The  ecclesiasti- 
cal antiquity  and  hagiography  of  Ireland  constitute  an  entire 
world  of  inquiry.  The  productiveness  of  the  monastic  germ 
planted  by  Patrick  and  Bridget  was  prodigious ; for  shortly 
the  monasteries  of  Bangor,  Clonfert,  and  elsewhere,  became 
entire  towns,  each  of  which  enclosed  more  than  three  thou- 
sand cenobites.  There  was,  besides,  an  intellectual  develop- 
ment which  the  hermits  of  Egypt  had  not  known.  The 
Irish  communities,  joined  by  the  monks  from  Gaul  and 
Home,  whom  the  example  of  Patrick  had  drawn  upon  his 
steps,  entered  into  rivalry  with  the  great  monastic  schools 
of  Gaul.  They  explained  Ovid  there ; they  copied  Yirgil ; 
they  devoted  themselves  especially  to  Greek  literature;  they 
drew  back  from  no  inquiry — from  no  discussion;  they 
gloried  in  placing  boldness  upon  a level  with  faith.  A 
characteristic  still  more  distinctive  of  the  Irish  monks,  as  of 
all  their  nation,  was  the  imperious  necessity  of  spreading 
themselves  without,  of  seeking  or  carrying  knowledge  and 
faith  afar,  and  of  penetrating  into  the  most  distant  regions 

(1)  Monk $ of  the  Watt,  v.  2,  p.  389. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


FAITH  PREACHED  BY  ST.  PATRICK. 


327 


/to  watch  or  combat  Paganism ; this  monastic  nation,  there- 
fore, became  the  missionary  nation,  by  excellence.  While 
some  came  to  Ireland  to  procure  religious  instruction,  the 
Irish  missionaries  launched  forth  from  their  island ; they 
covered  the  land  and  seas  of  the  west.  Unwearied  naviga- 
tors, they  landed  on  the  most  desert  islands ; they  overflowed 
the  continent  with  their  successive  emigrations ; they  saw 
in  incessant  visions  a world  known  and  unknown  to  be 
conquered  for  Christ.”  St.  Bernard  tells  us  that  “From 
Ireland,  as  from  an  overflowing  stream,  crowds  of  holy  men 
descended  on  foreign  nations/’  St.  Rupert,  who  had*been 
baptized  by  a nephew  of  St.  Patrick,  went,  with  twelve 
companions,  to  evangelize  Bavaria.  St.  Columba  and  twelve 
more  (1)  undertook  the  apostolic  mission  to  Albany.  St. 
Eloquius  carried  the  faith  into  Belgium ; St.  Willibrod  into 
Germany ; St.  Ailbe  into  Iceland  ; St.  Seizen  into  Armoric 
Britain  ; Sts.  Florentius,  Argobastus,  and  Hidulf,  into  Alsace. 
In*  Lynch’s  excellent  refutation  of  Gerald  Barry,  entitled 
Cambrensis  E versus,  is  given  a long  list  of  Irish  saints  “ who 
toiled  in  strange  lands,  and  fortified  them  abundantly  with 
the  dew  of  their  faith  and  virtues.”  In  Italy,  were  Donatus 
atFiesole  ; and  Andrew  and  Bridget,  at  Opaca.  In  Picardy, 
•Sts.  Caidoc  and  Fricorius.  At  Kheims,  Sts.  Gibrian,  Tressan, 
Hoelan,  Abram,  German,  Yeran,  Petroan,  Promptia,  Pos- 
senna,  and  Iruda.  At  Paris,  Claude,  Clement,  and  John.  At 
Boulogne,  Yulgan,  Kilian,  and  Obod.  In  the  district  of 
Beauvais,  Maura,  Brigid,  and  Hyspad.  In  Kleggon,  Ger- 
many, Northberga  and  Sista.  At  Ratisbon,  Sts.  Marian, 
John,  Candidus,  Clement,  Murcherdach,  and  Magnoald.  In 
Austrasia,  Sts.  Kilian,  Colonatus  and  Totnan.  “ Not  taking 
into  account,”  says  Lynch,  “ those  who  were  canonized  in 
Britain,  nor  those  who  went  over  to  the  continent  in  large 
bodies,  we  have  in  Italy,  St.  Ca^haldus,  patron  of  Tarentum  ; 
St.  Donatus,  patron  of  Fiesole  ; St.  Emilian,  patron  of  Faven- 
tum,  and  St.  Frigidian,  of  Lucca.  Pavia  honors  John  Al- 
binus  as  the  founder  of  her  university,  and  St.  Cumean  is, 
above  all  other  saints,  the  favorite  patron  of  Bobbio.  In 

(1)  Nearly  all  of  the  Irish  chiefs  of  missions  were  accompanied  by  twelve  assistants, 
probably  in  memory  of  our  Lord’s  chosen  Apostles,  and  perhaps,  also,  in  honor  of  the  twelva 
sent  by  Rome  with  Palladios  to  Ireland. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


328 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Gaul,  St.  Mansuetus  is  patron  of  Tulle ; St.  Finlag,  patron 
of  Metz ; and  St.  Prsecordius,  of  Corbie.  Amiens  honors  St. 
Forcensius,  and  Poitiers,  St.  Fridolin.  St.  Elias  is  patron  of 
Angouleme,  St.  Anatolius  of  Besangon,  St.  Fiacre  of  Meaux, 
St.  Fursa  of  Peronne,  and  St.  Lawrence  of  Eu.  Liege  honors 
Momo,  and  Strasbourg  Sts.  Florentius  and  Arbogast.  In 
Brittany,  Sts.  Origin,  Toava,  Tenan,  Gildas,  Brioc,  and 

many  others,  are  revered  as  patrons In  Belgium,  you 

have  in  Brabant,  Sts.  Rumold,  Fredegand,Himelin,  Dympna, 
and  Gerebern ; in  Flanders,  Sts.  Levin,  Guthagon,  Colum- 
banus ; in  Artois,  Sts.  Liugluio,  Liuglianus,  Kilian,  Vulgan, 
Fursa,  and  Obod ; in  Hainaut,  Sts.  Ette,  Adalgisus,  Abel, 
Wasnulf,  and  Mombolus  ; in  Namur,  Sts.  Farennan  and  Elo- 
quius ; in  Liege,  Sts.  Ultan,  Foillan,  and  Bertuin  ; in  Gael- 
dres,  Sts.  Wiro,  Plechelm,  and  Othger;  in  Friesland,  Sts. 
Suitbert  and  Acca.  But  Germany  especially  was  the  most 
flourishing  vineyard  of  our  saints.  St.  Albuin,  or  Witta,  is 
honored  as  apostle  in  Thuringia  ; St.  Disibode,  at  Treves  ; 
St.  Erhard,  in  Alsace  and  Bavaria ; St.  Fridolin,  in  the 
Grisons  of  Switzerland ; St.  Gall  among  the  Suabians, 
Swiss,  and  Rhaetians ; St.  John  in  Mecklenburg;  St.  Virgil 
at  Salzburg;  St.  Kilian,  in  Franconia;  St.  Rupert,  in  part 

of  Bavaria. Was  ever  panegyric  more  appropriate  than 

the  words  of  Eric  of  Auxerre  ? ‘ Need  I mention  Ireland, 

who,  despising  the  dangers  of  the  deep,  emigrates  to  our 
shores,  with  almost  the  whole  host  of  her  philosophers  ; the 
greatest  among  them  become  voluntary  exiles  to  minister 
to  the  tastes  of  our  wisest  Solomon  ? ” Now,  we  would  ask 
of  those  who  contend  that  the  faith  of  the  early  Irish  church 
was  not  that  of  Rome,  what  kind  of  doctrine  did  these 
Irish  ap.ostles  preach  to  their  neophytes?  What  doctrine 
was  believed,  what  system  practiced,  by  these  many  Irish 
saints  so  revered  on  the  continent  of  Europe?  They  every- 
where founded  churches,  or  at  least  worshipped  in  churches, 
which  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  Rome.  Our  adver- 
saries must  therefore  suppose,  either  that  all  these  evan- 
gelizers  and  saints  at  once  apostatized  to  Rome,  immediate- 
ly upon  commencing  their  mission ; or  that  none  of  these 
countries  which  revere  these  saints,  held  the  faith  of  Rome, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


EUTYCHIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  329 

when  they  commenced  to  honor  them.  Either  idea  is  as 
absurd  as  it  is  historically  false.  Viewing,  then,  the  close 
alliance  which  subsisted  between  the  continental  churches, 
which  confessedly  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the  Holy 
See,  and  the  representatives  of  the  early  Irish  church,  we 
must  conclude  that  this  latter  church  professed  obedience  to 
the  Chair  of  St.  Peter,  and  devoutly  received  the  doctrine 
that  it  taught. 


CHAPTER  XXVm. 

EUTYCHIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON. 

Eutyches  was  a monk,  as  most  heresiarchs  have  been,  in 
illustration  of  the  motto  “ corrupt io  optimi  pessimal  His 
position  as  Archimandrite  of  the  most  famous  monastery  of 
Constantinople,  gave  him  considerable  influence,  and  at  first 
he  used  it  well  in  the  cause  of  truth,  being  most  ardent  in 
combatting  the  heresy  of  Nestorius.  But  his  zeal  lacked 
the  foundation  of  theological  knowledge,  and  hence  he  easily 
fell  into  an  error  wrhich  was  simply  the  extreme  opposite 
of  the  one  he  attacked.  St.  Leo,  in  a letter  to  Pulcheria, 
says  that  his  heresy  “ was  born  rather  of  ignorance  than  of 
subtlety,”  and  in  his  cpist.  19,  he  styles  him  “ an  unlearned 
defender  of  the  ancient  faith.”  He  presented  the  two  Na- 
tures as  coalesced  into  one  in  the  Person  of  Christ ; assert- 
ing that  our  Lord  was  of  or  from  two  Natures,  but  not  in 
two  Natures.  According  to  him,  the  two  Natures,  which 
subsisted  before  the  union,  became  one  after  it,  and  hence 
came  the  corollary  that  Christ  was  not  of  our  substance  in 
the  flesh.  This  error  soon  spread  beyond  the  monastery, 
and  by  the  year  448  it  had  become  pretty  well  known.  An  in- 
timate friend  of  Eutyches,  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  tried  in 
vain  to  correct  the  theologaster,  and  finally  laid  the  matter 
before  Flavian,  bishop  of  Constantinople.  This  prelate  was 
at  that  time  (449)  holding  a Synod  of  his  suffragans,  and 
when  the  bishops  heard  the  complaint,  they  begged  Euse- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


330 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


bius,  in  the  name  of  ancient  friendship,  to  again  undertake 
the  task  of  fraternal  correction.  But  when  he  assured  them 
that  there  was  no  prospect  of  success,  they  sent  to'the  mon- 
astery an  order  commanding  the  presence  of  Eutyches  in 
the  Synod.  The  abbot  replied  that  his  vow  would  not  per- 
mit him  to  leave  his  monastery;  that  the  accusation  of  Eu- 
sebius was  the  result  of  enmity  ; that  he  was  ready  to  sign  the 
decrees  of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  but  that  he  would  not  follow, 
the  whims  of  the  bishops  when  he  deemed  them  contrary  to 
truth  ; that  he  acknowledged  one  Nature  in  the  Incarnate 
God  ; and  that,  in  fine,  he  relied  upon  the  Scriptures  alone, 
as  being  of  more  weight  than  the  expositions  of  the  fathers. 
The  Synod  now  summoned  the  recusant  again  and  again, 
and  after  the  third  citation  he  sent  several  monks  to  report 
that  he  was  sick,  and  to  answer  in  his  name  the  questions  of 
the  fathers.  Flavian,  however,  repeated  the  injunction  for 
the  personal  attendance  of  Eutyches,  for  he  well  knew  that 
the  excuse  was  a lie.  During  the  interval  that  passed  be- 
fore the  next  session  of  the  Synod,  the  obstinate  monk  used 
his  influence  at  the  imperial  court  (1)  to  obtain  from  The- 
odosius a rescript,  drawn  up  ostensibly  in  the  interests  of 
peace,  but  calculated  to  terrify  the  more  weak  of  the  prelates. 
When  the  Synod  resumed  its  sessions,  Eutyches  entered 
the  hall  with  a turbulent  crowd  of  his  brethren,  flanked  by  a 
band  of  Praetorian  guards,  headed  by  the  Great  Silentiarius 
(2)  of  the  emperor.  But  the  bishops  were  not  deterred  from 
the  fulfilment  of  their  duty.  They  listened  to  the  mandate 
of  Theodosius  with  respect,  and  then  proceeded  to  business. 
They  carefully  questioned  Eutyches,  and  the  result  of  the 
investigation  was  the  following  sentence  delivered  by  Fla* 
viau : 44  Eutyches,  once  a priest  and  archimandrite,  has 

been  found  infected  with  the  errors  of  Valentine  and  Apolli- 
naris.  and  to  unchangeably  agree  with  their  blasphemies; 
he  has  not  revered  our  persuasions  and  teaching,  nor  con- 
sented to  the  right  doctrine.  Whence  with  tears  and  groans 

(1)  The  eunuch  Chrysuphius,  first  chamberlain  to  Theodosius,  was  godson  of  Eutyches  and  de- 
voted to  him.  When  Flavian  was  consecrated,  this  officer  applied  to  him  for  the  usual  present 
to  the  emperor,  of  which,  of  course,  be  was  to  have  a share.  The  bishop  gave  him,  instead  of 
golden  loaves,  some  of  pure  bread.  From  that  day,  Chrysaphius  moved  the  court,  especially 
the  f * ninine  ele  ne.it,  with  intrigue*  agilnst  him.  Nicephorcs,  b.  14,  c.  46. 

<£)  This  officer  was  the  first  counsellor  of  the  Byzantine  rulers,  and  was  styled  “ Silent!- 
*rius  ” from  the  secrecy  necessary  in  his  functions. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


EUTYCHIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNOIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  331 

we  have  decreed  his  perfect  perdition  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  has  blasphemed,  and  he  is  deprived 
of  every  sacerdotal  office,  of  our  communion,  and  of  the  rule 
of  his  monastery  ; all  knowing  this,  that  if  henceforth  they 
speak  or  treat  with  him,  they  themselves  incur  the  pain 
of  excommunication.”  To  this  decree  subscribed  thirty-two 
bishops,  as  judges,  and  twentv-three  abbots  as  assenting  (1). 

Eutyches  now  appealed  to  Pope  St.  LeoL,  and  endeavored 
to  secure  the  intercession  of  St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  bishop 
of  Jdavenna.  The  latter  declined  interfere,  but  wrote. 
“ Iu  all  things  we  exhort  thee  to  obedicnclv  attend  to  what 
is  written  by  the  Most  Blessed  Pope  of  Home,  for  the  Bless- 
ed Peter,  who  lives  and  presides  in  his  own  See,  gives  to 
seekers  the  truths  of  faith.”  In  his  appeal  to  Pope  Leo, 
Eutyches  declared  that  Eusebius  had  shown  nothing  wrong 
in  his  belief ; that  he  had  been  deprived  of  his  rights,  al- 
though he  professed  the  Nicene  faith.  As  Flavian  had  not 
yet  written  to  the  Pontiff  upon  these  matters,  St.  Leo  ap- 
plied for  information  to  that  prelate  and  to  Theodosius. 
Flavian  immediately  replied,  enclosing  the  Acts  of  the  Synod 
which  had  condemned  Eutyches.  Soon  after  the  receipt  of 
Flavian  s letter,  the  Pontiff  sent  the  celebrated  Dogmatic 
Epistle  which  was  afterwards  read  at  Chalcedon,  and  of 
which  we  shall  treat  at  some  length.  By  the  help  of  the 
eunuch  Chrysaphius,  Eutyches  now  prevailed  upon  Theodo- 
sius to  call  a Synod  -at  Ephesus,  for  an  examination  of  his 
-case,  and  lest  his  sentence  should  be  confirmed,  if  the  Papal 
legates  were  to  preside,  he  induced  the  emperor  to  issue  an 
edict  conferring  the  presidency  upon  Dioscorus  of  Alex- 
andria. This  Synod  was  attended  by  130  bishops,  and  by 
four  Papal  legates.  These  latter,  when  they  became  aware 
of  the  violation  of  the  Pontifical  rights  by  Dioscorus,  de- 
manded that  their  credentials  should  be  read,  and  Dioscorus 
swore  to  do  so ; again  and  again  the  demand  was  repeated, 
and  each  time  it  was  evaded.  Therefore,  though  they  re- 
mained a 8 witnesses,  the  legates  took  no  official  part  in  the 
proceedings.  Theodosius,  deceived  by  Chrysaphius,  re- 
garded Flavian  as  a wicked  cause  of  all  the  Euty chian  tu- 

(1)  Libkratus;  Breviary,  c.  11.  Evaoritcts  ; Hist .,  b - 1,  c.9. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


332 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


mults,  and  in  a rescript  to  Elpidius,  Count  of  the  Consis- 
tory, which  was  afterwards  read  in  the  first  Action  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  he  excluded  from  the  right  of  suffrage 
not  only  Flavian,  but  all  the  bishops  who  had  condemned 
Eutyches,  and  gave  to  Elpidius  constabular  authority  to 
enforce  the  decision.  In  this  Synod,  held  in  449,  Eutyches 
was  restored  to  communion  and  to  the  government  of  his 
monastery ; Flavian  and  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  were  de- 
posed from  their  sees.  When  some  of  the  bishops  threw 
themselves  at  the  feet  of  Dioscorus  in  intercession  for 
Flavian,  the  soldiers  and  monks  fell  upon  them  with  blows. 
A scene  of  horror  ensued,  in  the  midst  of  which  the  Papal 
legates  protested,  and  Flavian  appealed  to  Rome.  This  in- 
trepid prelate  was  then  attacked  by  the  monks,  headed,  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  many  bishops  in  the  fourth 
Action  of  Chalcedon,  by  the  abbot  Barsumas.  So  severely 
was  he  wounded  that  he  died  a few  days  after,  while  being 
carried  into  exile.  From  this  epitome  of  the  facts,  may  be 
gathered  the  wisdom  of  those  who  styled  this  assemblage 
at  Ephesus  a “Robber  Synod.”  Theodosius  not  only  re- 
fused to  allow  a reconsideration  of  the  Acts  of  this  Synod, 
but  he  made  an  express  law  as  to  the  respect  to  be  shown 
for  them.  This  emperor  died  in  the  year  450,  and  his  suc- 
cessor, Marcianus,  agreed  to  forward  St.  Leo’s  project  of 
a General  Council  to  heal  the  wounds  of  the  Church. 

This  Council  at  first  met  in  Nicaea  of  Bithynia,  in  Sep- 
tember, 451,  but  for  the  convenience  of  Marcianus  and  the 
senate,  who  wished  to  witness  the  proceedings,  the  fathers 
adjourned  to  Chalcedon,  a town  not  far  from  the  capital. 
The  Pontifical  legates  were  Paschasinus,  bishop  of  Marsala, 
Lucentius,  bishop  of  Ascoli,  and  the  priests  Boniface  and 
Basil ; to  these  was  afterwards  joined  the  bishop  Julian. 
The  number  of  bishops  in  attendance  was  nearly  six  hun- 
dred. 

As  to  the  convocation  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  much 
need  not  be  said.  Alexandre  holds  that  it  was  convoked 
by  Marcian,  with  the  consent  of  St  Leo ; but  his  arguments 
do  not  prove  that  it  was  not  convoked  by  the  Pope,  with 
the  consent  and  assistance  of  the  emperor.  That  Marcian 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


EUTYOHXANISM,  AND  TEE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  333 

faithfully  labored  to  make  the  Council  a success,  as  did  Con- 
stantine in  the  case  of  Nice,  is  certain,  but  his  letters  to 
the  Pontiff  and  his  actions  in  the  Council  go  to  show  that, 
no  more  than  Constantine,  did  he  wish  to  encroach  upon 
the  prerogative  of  Rome.  In  the  epistle  of  Yalentinian 
and  Marcian  to  St.  Leo,  which  was  read  in  the  first  part  of 
the  Council,  occur  these  words  : “ We  deem  it  right  in  the 
beginning  to  address  your  Holiness  as  possessing  the  princi- 
pality in  the  episcopacy,  inviting  and  praying,  <fce.”  These 
words  no  not  indicate  any  disposition  upon  the  part  of  the 
emperor  to  usurp  the  initiative  in  the  matter  of  convocation, 
nor  do  the  following : “If  it  pleases  your  Blessedness  to 
come  into  these  parts,  and  to  celebrate  a Synod,  deign  to 
do  so  for  love  of  religion,  and  you  will  certainly  satisfy  our 
wishes,  and  point  out  what  will  be  useful  to  religion.  If, 
however,  it  is  laborious  for  you  to  come  hither,  let  your 
Holiness  manifest  it  to  us  by  letter,  so  that  our  letters  may 
be  sent  through  the  entire  East,  and  into  Thrace  and 
Illyria,  for  all  the  bishops  to  meet  in  some  definite  place, 
where  it  may  please  us,  to  dispose  things  for  the  good  of 
the  Christian  religion  and  the  Catholic  Faith,  as  your  Holi- 
ness, according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church,  may  define.*’  If 
the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff  had  not  been  invoked 
for  the  summoning  of  the  Council,  the  legate  Lucentius  would 
not  have  so  confidently  accused  Dioscorus,  because  “ when 
he  had  no  power  to  judge,  he  presumed  and  dared  to  hold  a 
Synod,  without  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See,  which 
was  never  done,  nor  was  permitted  to  be  done .”  Pope  Gelasius, 
in  his  letter  to  the  bishops  of  Dardania,  says  that,  u The 
Apostolic  See  alone  decreed  that  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon 
should  be  held.”  To  this  testimony  Alexandre  says  that  in 
his  Roman  Synod  the  same  Pope  spoke  “otherwise,”  when 
he  declared  that  the  Roman  Church  accepted  “ the  Holy 
Synod  of  Chalcedon,  congregated  by  means  of  Marcianus.” 
But  Gelasius  does  not  "here  speak  “otherwise.”  In  this 
very  phrase  “ by  means  of  ” (in  the  original,  mediante)  lies 
the  very  essence  of  the  question.  The  Council  was  certain- 
ly convoked  “by  means  of”  the  emperor,  when  he  afforded 
the  aid  of  his  government  in  summoning  the  bishops,  in 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


334 


STUDIES  IS'XHURCH  HISTORY. 


procuring  them  safe  and  free  transit  to  and  from  the  place 
of  meeting,  in  entertaining  them,  &c.  The  far-reaching  .and 
well- organized  machinery  of  the  imperial  government  was 
made  to  take  the  place  held  now  by  the  post- office,  and  without 
it  t::e  summonses  could  scarcely  have  been  served ; the 
same  machinery  was  necessary  to  secure  the  prompt  attend- 
ance of  the  Synodals.  In  this  sense  of  aiding  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  and  in  no  other,  did  Marcian  convoke  the  Council. 

In  noting  the  Actions  of  the  Council,  we  shall  speak  only 
of  the  most  important,  and  with  the  brevity  which  becomes 
our  limits.  In  the  first  Action , at  the  instance  of  the  Papal 
legates,  it  was  resolved  that  Dioscorus  could  not  sit  in  the 
Synod  as  a judge,  but  that  he  might  be  placed  in  the  mid- 
dle as  a culprit.  The  Acts  of  the  Constantinopolitan  Synod 
of  Flavian  and  of  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus  were  read, 
and  Flavian  and  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  were  vindicated 
from  the  charges  brought  against  them.  The  same  punish- 
ment wAs  decreed  to  the  leaders  of  the  Robber  Synod  as 
they  had  pronounced  upon  their  victims.  In  the  second 
Actim , the  Faith  was  considered.  The  Symbols  of  Nice 
and  Constantinople  were  read  ; also,  the  two  Synodical 
Epistles  of  St.  Cyril,  and  the  Dogmatic  Epistle  of  St.  Leo 
to  Flavian,  the  latter  being  received  by  the  bishops  with 
the  cry  of  “Peter  has  spoken  through  Leo.’*  and  with  other 
devout  acclamations.  Then  a debate  ensued  about  Dios- 
corus, some  exclaiming  “Dioscorus  to  exile,”  “Christ  has 
condemned  Dioscorus, ' “He  who  communicates  with  Dios- 
corus is  a Jew;  " others  crying  out,  “We  all  have  sinned, 
let  all  be  pardoned.”  In  the  third  Action , by  order  of  the 
legates,  were  read  the  accusations  made  by  Eusebius  of 
Dorylfeum  against  Dioscorus.  Thrice  summoned  to  ap- 
pear, the  culprit  refused  to  obey.  Then  the  Papal  legates 
pronounced  sentence  against  him  for  having  received  Euty- 
clies  into  communion  when  he  had  been  canonically  ex- 
communicated ; for  having  prevented  the  reading  of  Pope 
Leo's  Epistle  to  Flavian  at  the  Robber  Synod ; for  pre- 
tending to  excommunicate  the  Pontiff ; for  having  contemned 
the  Council.  “ Hence,’’  they  said,  “ by  us  and  through  the 
present  Holy  Synod,  the  Most  Holy  and  Most  Blessed  Leo, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


EUTYCHIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  335 

Archbishop  of  the  great  and  senior  Rome,  together  with  the 
thrice  Blessed,  and  worthy  of  all  praise,  Apostle  Peter,  who 
is  the  rock  and  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the 
basis  of  right  Faith,  has  denuded  him  of  the  episcopal 
dignity  and  removed  him  from  every  Sacerdotal  ministry.” 
In  the  fourth  Action , the  fathers  accorded  a delay  of  five 
days  before  they  would  proceed  to  an  inquisition  on  faith,  in 
order  that  Anatolius  of  Constantinople,  and  a number  of 
those  who  had  subscribed  to  Pope  Leo's  Epistle,  might  ex- 
plain certain  of  its  passages  to  some  of  the  bishops  When 
they  again  met  all  the  Synodals  subscribed  to  the  document. 

It  was  then  ordered  that  a certain  petition  should  be  read 
which  a large  number  of  abbots  and  monks  had  presented 
to  Marcian,  asking  him  to  bring  about  another  Synod,  as 
they  could  not  recognize  the  present  one  as  general,  since 
Dioscorus  was  excluded  from  a seat  among  the  judges. 
When  asked  to  subscribe  to  the  Dogmatic  Epistle  of  the 
Pontiff,  the  monks  refused,  declaring  that  this  requirement 
was  of  a piece  with  the  system  of  persecution  which  the 
secular  clergy  always  exercised  towards  them.  The  meek 
creatures  finally  threatened  to  withdraw  from  the  communion 
of  those  bishops  who  would  vote  for  anything  contrary  to 
their  humble  petition.  At  this  juncture,  iEtius,  archdeacon 
of  Constantinople,  read  a canon  of  a Council  of  Antioch,  in 
which  it  was  ordained  that  any  one  suspending  his  own 
communion,  and  refusing  to  obey  his  bishop,  if  he  ordered 
the  suspended  to  return,  should  be  degraded  forever  ; that 
if  he  should  cause  sedition  in  the  Church,  he  should  be 
handed  over  to  the  secular  power.  To  this  canon,  the 
fathers  assented.  In  the  fifth  Action , a definition  of  faith 
was  read,  but  the  Papal  legates  and  some  Orientals  contend- 
ed that  it  was  not  sufficient  to  declare  that  Christ  is  “ from 
two  Natures ; ’ that  it  should  be  stated  that  He  is  “ in 
two  Natures,  inconfusedly,  immutably,  and  undividedly.  ” | 
Thus  it  was  finally  arrauged.  In  the  sixth  Action . the  em- 
peror Marcian  was  present,  and  he  presented  certain  decrees 
to  the  Council,  recommending  their  adoption.  “ There  are  cer- 
tain Chapters,”  he  said  ‘‘which  we  have  reserved  in  honor 
to  your  Reverences,  deeming  it  proper  that  such  things 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


336 


8TUDIES  IN  CHUBCH  HI8T0BY. 


should  be  regularly  established  in  this  Synod,  rather  1 1; an 
by  our  law.”  The  first  of  these  decrees  prohibited  monks 
from  building  monasteries  without  the  consent  of  the  bish- 
op ; the  second  ordered  clergymen  not  to  engage  in  secular 
business  ; the  third  prevented  clerics  from  passing  from  one 
diocese  to  another,  at  their  own  free  will.  In  the  next  eight 
Actions , were  considered  the  causes  of  many  individual 
bishops  ; among  others,  those  of  Theodoret,  and  Ibas  of 
Edessa,  who  were  restored  to  their  sees.  In  the  fifteenth 
Action , while  the  Papal  legates  were  absent,  the  Synod 
edited  twenty-eight  canons,  of  which  the  last  confirmed  the 
famous  Constantinopolitan  canon  conferring  the  first  place 
after  Rome  upon  Constantinople.  In  the  sixteenth  Action , 
the  legates  demanded  the  reading  of  the  twenty-eighth  canon 
and  requested  the  fathers  to  reflect  upon  the  circumvention 
which  must  have  been  used  ere  they  were  compelled  to  sign 
the  ‘ non  conscribed  canons  which  they  mentioned’*  (1). 
The  bishops  chafed  at  the  word  “compelled, v and  cried  out 
that  “ no  one  was  forced  to  sign.”  Then  the  legate  Lucen- 
tius,  persisting  in  his  opposition,  .Etius,  archdeacon  of  Con- 
stantinople. asked  if  the  Pope  had  included  this  opposition 
in  his  instructions.  The  legate  Boniface  replied  by  reading 
from  the  Diploma  of  Legation,  the  following  : “ Suffer  not 
the  Constitutions  of  the  Holy  Fathers  to  be  violated  or 
diminished  by  any  temerity,  preserving  in  every  way  the 
dignity  of  our  person  in  yourselves,  whom  we  have  sent  in 
our  place  ; and  if  it  chances  that  any  city,  confused  by  its 
splendor,  tries  any  usurpation,  repel  the  attempt  with 
becoming  constancy.”  Neverthless,  the  bishops  persisted  in 
editing  the  canon,  whereupon  Lucentius  protested  in  these 
terms  : “The  Holy  See  commanded  that  everything  should 
be  done  in  our  presence  ; therefore  we  ask  of  your  Sublimi- 
ties that  you  order  to  be  cancelled  all  that  was  consummated 
yesterday  in  our  absence  ; otherwise,  let  our  contradiction 
cling  to  those  proceedings,  as  we  shall  know  what  to  refer 
to  the  Apostolic  and  Principal  Bishop  of  the  Church,  that 
he  may  pronounce  sentence  as  to  the  disregard  of  the  canons 
and  as  to  the  injury  offered  to  his  See.” 

(1)  The  leprates  styled  the  Constantinopolitan  canons  “non-conscripti  ” because  the.  Holy 
See  had  not  received  them. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


1UTYCHIANI&M,  AMO  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEOON.  337 

Oar  attention  is  now  claimed  by  the  Dogmatic  Epistle 
sent  by  Pope  St.  Leo  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  when  he 
had  received  from  that  prelate  a copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Synod 
held  by  him  against  Eutyches.  The  Acts  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  show  that  this  epistle  was  received  by  the  fathers 
with  acclamations  of  joy  and  of  praise,  but  the  adversaries 
of  Papal  infallibility  hold  that,  before  the  bishops  gave  their 
assent  to  the  doctrine  contained  therein,  they  subjected  it 
to  a juridical  examination.  That  such  was  not  the  case,  but 
that  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon  received  the  letter  of  the 
Pontiff  as  an  authoritative  and  infallible  exposition  of  Cath- 
olic doctrine,  we  now  proceed  to  demonstrate.  But  it  is 
well  to  know  at  once  in  what  light  the  Pontiff  himself  re- 
garded this  letter.  It  is  certain  that  when  the  Robber  Synod 
was  about  to  be  held,  St.  Leo  declared  that  no  doubt  was  to 
be  entertained  as  to  the  heresy  of  Eutyches,  since  in  his 
epistle  to  Flavian  he  had  made  plain  the  Catholic  doctrine. 
In  his  letter  to  Theodosius,  written  immediately  after  the 
one  to  Flavian,  he  says  that  he  has  sent  legates  to  Ephesus, 
“ in  order  that,  because  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  what  is 
Christian  doctrine,  the  gravity  of  the  whole  error  may  be 
condemned,  and  he  who  has  erred  may  experience  sacerdo- 
tal benevolence,  if  he  asks  for  pardon. As  to  what 

the  Catholic  Church  universally  believes  and  teaches  upon 
the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord,  it  is  more  fully  contained  in 
the  letters  which  I have  sent  to  our  brother  bishop,  Flavian.” 
Writing  to  the  bishops  congregated  at  Ephesus,  he  plainly 
tells  them  what  they  are  to  do ; he  says  that  his  legates  “ will 
establish  what  will  be  pleasing  to  the  Lord  ; that  is,  at  once 
the  pestiferous  error  being  condemned,  let  the  restoration 
be  considered  of  him  who  has  imprudently  erred ; provided, 
of  course,  that  he  accepts  the  true  doctrine,  and  that  he 
clearly  and  openly,  with  his  own  voice  and  hand,  condemns 
the  heretical  ideas  into  which  his  ignorance  has  led  him.” 
In  another  letter  to  Theodosius  (No.  17),  he  says  that  he 
needed  not  to  have  called  a Synod,  which  certainly  indicates 
that  he  did  not  wish  his  decision  to  be  critically  examined. 
The  mind  of  St.  Leo  is  made  more  clear  to  us  by  his  saying 
to  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon,  “ In  my  vicars  I am  now  pres- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


338 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ent,  who  but  lately  was  not  absent  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Catholic  faith  ; that  you,  who  cannot  ignore  what  we  must 
believe  from  ancient  tradition,  may  not  doubt  as  to  what  we 
desire.  Wherefore,  most  dear  brethren,  the  audacity  of 
dispute  against  divinely  inspired  faith  being  left  aside,  let 
vain  infidelity  of  error  subside.  Let  not  that  be  defended 
which  cannot  be  believed,  since  by  the  letters  which  we  sent 
to  bishop  Flavian  of  blessed  memory,  it  has  been  most  fully 
and  lucidly  declared,  according  to  evangelical  authority,  ac- 
cording to  the  voices  of  the  prophets,  and  according  to  Apos- 
tolic doctrine,  what  is  the  pious  and  sincere  confession  in 
Regard  to  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  The 
writer  of  these  words  would  assuredly  be  surprised,  did  he 
hear  that  his  teaching  was  subjected  to  critical  disquisition. 
In  his  letter  of  instructions  to  the  bishop  Julian,  whom  he 
joined  to  the  legation  of  Chalcedon,  probably  on  the  death 
of  Julius  of  Puteoli,  St.  Leo  says,  “I  have  written  to  our 
brother  Flavian  sufficient  for  you  and  the  Universal  Church 
to  learn  the  ancient  and  singular  faith  which  the  ignorant 
opponent  has  attacked,  that  which  we  hold  as  divinely  de- 
livered, and  which  we  undeviatingly  preach.”  Does  this 
sound  like  the  language  of  one  who  expected  his  instruc- 
tions to  be  weighed  and  discounted?  When  the  news  of 
the  disgusting  scenes  at  the  Pseudo-Synod  of  Ephesus  ar- 
rived at  Rome,  the  Pontiff  wrote  again  to  Theodosius,  and 
ascribed  much  of  the  wickedness  of  that  body  to  the  cun- 
ning of  Dioscorus  in  withholding  the  letter  to  Flavian,  for, 
said  he,  “If  the  Alexandrian  bishop  had  permitted  our  let- 
ter to  Flavian  to  reach  the  ears  of  the  bishops,  all  the  noise 
of  dispute  would  have  been  quieted  by  the  manifestation  of 
that  most  pure  faith  which  by  divine  inspiration  we  have 
received  and  hold.”  And  when  it  was  finally  determined  to 
hold  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  he  selected  Pascliasinus 
as  his  first  legate,  he  sent  to  him  a copy  of  the  epistle  to 
Flavian,  saying.  “I  have  sent  to  you,  to  be  diligently  studied 
and  learned,  the  epistle  which  ve  sent  to  Flavian  of  blessed 
memory  about  this  matter,  and  which  the  Universal  Church 
receives.” 

And  now  for  the  • h;vh  the  Council  of  Chalce- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


EUTYCH1ANISM,  AND  TflE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  339 

don  received  this  epistle.  That  the  Council  acknowledged 
a really  dominative  power  in  the  Pontiff  may  be  seen  at  once 
from  its  obedience  to  his  mandate  that  Dioscorus  should 
not  judge  in  the  Synod,  but  only  be  heard.  In  the  first 
Action , the  legate  Paschasinus  said,  “ We  have  in  our  hands 
the  commands  of  the  Most  Blessed  and  Apostolic  Pope  of 
Home,  which  is  the  head  of  all  the  churches,  by  which  his 
Apostleship  has  deigned  to  order  that  Dioscorus,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  the  Alexandrians,  shall  not  sit  in  the  Council,  but 
may  be  admitted  as  a hearer.”  Evagrius,  b.  2,  c.  4,  tells  us 
how  the  Synod  obeyed.  “ There  were  present  in  the  Council, 
the  bishops  Paschasinus  and  Lucentius,  Vicars  of  Leo ; 
also  Dioscorus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  to  whose  number  were 
added  the  chief  senators,  to  whom  the  Vicars  of  Leo  declared 
that  Dioscorus  should  not  sit  with  them  in  the  Council,  as  so 
it  had  been  decreed  by  their  bishop  Leo  ; that  if  it  were  not 
so  observed,  they  would  go  out  of  the  church.  Which  when 
they  had  said,  and  by  order  of  the  senate  Dioscorus  had 
been  placed,  <fcc.”  But  to  come  nearer  to  the  point,  why 
should  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon  have  wished  to  subject  the 
epistle  of  Leo  to  the  crucial  test,  when  already,  thoughout 
the  world,  it  had  been  regarded  as  definitive  ? Not  only  in 
the  East,  but  in  the  West,  it  was  already  regarded  as  a dec- 
laration of  orthodoxy,  and  a subscription  to  it  was  the  test 
of  faith.  Thus,  we  find  the  emperor  Marcian  declaring  that, 
if  the  Pontiff  could  not  come  to  the  East,  all  the  bishops 
would  agree  with  what  he  had  defined ; we  hear  the  bishops 
of  Gaul  (Ballerini,  epist.  68)  designating  the  epistle  as  one 
approved  of  by  the  whole  Church;  we  see  it  sent  to  all  the 
metropolitans  to  be  subscribed  by  them  ( act.  4,  Cone.  Chal- 
ced.)  But  let  us  come  to  the  Council.  In  the  first  Action , a 
question  was  raised  as  to  the  faith  of  Flavian,  and  it  was  set- 
tled at  once  when  the  Papal  legates  declared  that  he  believed 
whatever  Leo  proposed  to  be  believed.  Is  this  acquiescence 
likely  on  the  part  of  men  about  to  doubt  of  the  criterion  ? 
In  the  second  Action , the  fathers  declined  to  frame  a new  ex- 
position of  faith,  on  the  ground  that  the  Nicene,  Constanti- 
nopolitan,  andEphesine  decrees  were  sufficient  for  Arius  and 
Nestorius,  and  Pope  Leo’s  epistle  settled  the  question  of 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


340 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Eutyches.  Were  they  about  to  examine  the  decrees  of  the 
three  general  Councils?  In  this  session,  the  epistle  was 
read,  and  these  were  the  cries  that  accompanied  and  followed 
it : “ This  is  the  faith  of  the  fathers,  and  of  the  Apostles- 

We  all  thus  believe.  Anathema  to  him  who  believes  not 
thus.  Peter  has  spoken  through  Leo.  The  Apostles  so 
taught.  Leo  and  Cyril! us  have  so  taught.  Why  were  these 
not  read  at  Ephesus  ? Dioscorus  hid  them.”  Of  no  avail  as 
an  argument  against  us  is  the  delay  asked  for  by  Atticus  of 
Nicopolis  and  a few  others,  for  we  read  in  the  records,  “ Let 
the  session  be  deferred  five  days,  that  those  who  doubt  may 
be  taught.  All  the  bishops  exclaimed,  ‘We  believe  thus.  As 
Leo  believes,  so  do  we.  We  have  already  subscribed.’  ” In 
the  fourth  Action , the  legates  declared  that  “ the  letters  of 
the  Most  Blessed  and  Apostolic  Leo,  Pope  of  the  Universal 
Church,  condemning  the  heresies  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches, 
have  explained  what  is  the  true  faith.  Similarly,  therefore, 
the  Holy  Synod  holds  this  faith,  and  follows  it ; nothing  can 
it  add  or  subtract.”  And  when  some  of  the  Egyptian  bish- 
ops sought  to  evade  an  open  condemnation  of  Eutyches,  the 
Synod  insisted  upon  their  immediate  subscription  of  the  Pon- 
tiffs epistle,  stigmatizing  as  a heretic  any  one  refusing  to 
obey.  In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  it  is  plain  that  the  fath- 
ers of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  from  the  very  beginning,  re- 
spected Pope  St.  Leo’s  epistle  as  a certain  rule  of  faith. 

Alexandre  agrees  with  Bossuet  in  finding  a proof  of  the 
superiority  of  a Council  over  the  Boman  Pontiff  in  the  fact 
that  Pope  Leo  allowed  the  cause  of  Dioscorus  to  be  treated 
at  Ephesus  and  at  Chalcedon,  even  though  he  had  issued  his 
Dogmatic  Epistle.  And  he  adduces  the  testimony  of  the 
Pope  himself  to  show  that  he  believed  in  this  superiority; 
for  in  his  Synodical  Epistle  to  the  fathers  at  Ephesus,  St. 
Leo  says  that  the  emperor  wished  for  a Council,  “ in  order 
that,  by  a / idler  judgment , every  error  might  be  swept  away.” 
But  we  have  already  seen  that  the  Pope  told  Flavian  that 
the  affair  “ needed  no  treatment  whatever  by  a Synod;”  that 
he  told  Theodosius  that  “ for  reasonable  causes  he  should 
refrain  from  calling  a Synod  ;”  we  have  heard  St.  Peter 
Chrysologus  advising  Eutyches  to  obediently  attend  to  what 


Digitized  by  Google 


EUTYCHIANISM,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALOEDON.  341 

the  Roman  Pontiff  would  write,  because  “ the  Blessed  Peter 
shows  to  seekers  the  true  faith.’'  If,  iu  the  face  of  all 
this,  at  the  request  of  the  emperor,  a Council  was  called, 
the  Pontiff  so  permitted,  not  because  he  thought  an  oecu- 
menical Synod  superior  to  himself,  but  to  repress  the  con- 
tumacy of  the  heretics,  by  leaving  them  no  possible  excuse 
for  their  obstinacy.  Indeed,  asks  Roncaglia  (1),  in  treating 
of  this  objection  of  Bossuet,  who  ever  heard  an  inferior 
judge  declare  that  a superior  tribunal  was  supererogatory 
in  his  regard  ? And  yet,  in  the  supposition  of  Bossuet, 
such  would  have  been  the  presumption  of  St.  Leo.  Again, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  fathers  at  Nicaea  (afterwards  at  Chal- 
cedon)  the  Pontiff  forbade  any  disputation  upon  faith,  be- 
cause he  had  already,  in  his  epistle  to  Flavian,  fully  ex- 
plained what  was  to  be  believed.  Writing  this,  could  he 
have  dreamed  of  a critical  examination  of  his  letter  ? St. 
Leo  assented  to  the  holding  of  a General  Council,  concludes 
Roncaglia,  but  in  it  he  was  to  be  dominant ; what  he 
desired,  was  to  be  done  ; disputes  were  to  be  avoided,  and 
his  Dogmatic  Epistle  to  Flavian  was  to  be  the  rule  of  faith 
in  the  matter  of  Eutychianism.  But.  it  is  urged,  be  all  this 
as  it  may,  the  Chalcedon  fathers  did,  nevertheless,  institute 
a judicial  inquisition  into  the  letter  to  Flavian,  for  the 
method  of  subscription  adopted  by  the  prelates  can  be  un- 
derstood in  no  other  supposition.  Having  read  the  letter, 
and  found  it  concordant  with  the  doctrines  of  the  first 
two  (Ecumenical  Councils,  the  bishops  signed  their  names 
in  this  guise  : “ It  agrees,  and  I have  subscribed  “ Hav- 
ing found  it  to  agree,  I have  subscribed “ Persuaded 
that  it  agrees  in  all,  I signed.”  These  subscriptions  are 
certainly  sufficiently  formal,  but  they  do  not  necessarily  in- 
dicate that  their  authors  had  held  a judicial,  rather  than 
an  informatory,  examination  of  the  document.  Besides, 
many  of  these  subscribers  had  long  before  assented  to  this 
epistle  as  to  a test  of  their  orthodoxy  ; why,  then,  should 
they  now  inquire  into  its  value  ? But  let  us  look  a little 
closely  into  the  Acts  of  the  Council.  In  the  fourth  Action , 
when  the  Apostolic  legates  declared  that  the  Epistle  of 

<1)  Animadversion*  on  Alexandre's  1 2th  Dissertation , 5 th  Century ; S 3. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


342 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Pope  Leo  contained  the  true  faith,  and  that  the  Synod 
“ could  not  add  nor  subtract  from  it,”  the  bishops  exclaim- 
ed, “ We  all  thus  believe  ; so  we  w'ere  baptized,  so  we  bap- 
tize.” And  this  declaration  as  to  not  adding  to,  nor  sub- 
tracting from,  the  letter,  was  made  Ixfore  its  comparison 
with  the  doctrine  of  Nice  and  Ephesus.  When,  therefore, 
they  afterwards  approved  of  the  document,  they  did  so,  not 
because  anything  was  wanting  to  render  it  irrefragable, 
but  that  they  might  show  that  they  acknowledged  in  it  an 
authoritative  teaching  as  to  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord. 
That  this  is  the  proper  view  to  take  of  their  action,  is  made 
manifest  by  what  followed  in  the  fifth  Action . The  fathers 
had  framed  a Profession  of  Faith,  and  cried  out  that  he  was 
a heretic  who  would  not  sign  it.  But  the  legates  protested 
that  it  was  not  proper,  and  demanded  that  it  should  be 
amended,  so  as  to  be  thoroughly  consonant  with  the  Epis- 
tle of  the  Pontiff,  saying,  “ If  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
letter  of  the  Apostolic  and  Most  Blessed  Pope  Leo,  order 
a rescript  to  be  given  to  us,  that  we  may  return  ; and  thete 
let  the  Synod  be  completed.”  The  bishops  yielded,  thereby 
showing  that  they  held  no  heterodox  notions  as  to  the  re- 
formability  of  a Papal  decree  by  a General  Council,  and 
that  their  examination  of  the  Epistle  to  Flavian  was  merely 
for  a better  understanding  of  its  contents. 

The  defenders  of  the  doctrine  that  a General  Council  is 
superior  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  bring  forward  another  testi- 
mony to  their  theory  from  Pope  St.  Leo.  In  a letter  (No. 
120)  to  Theodoret,  written  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
the  Pontiff  thus  alludes  to  his  Epistle  to  Flavian.  When 
certain  persons,  incited  by  the  author  of  dissension,  entered 
upon  a war  of  contradiction,  there  came  about  a greater 

good  from  the  Dispenser  of  all  good  things the 

truth  itself  more  clearly  shines  forth,  and  is  more  firmly 
held,  when,  that  which  faith  has  first  taught,  an  examina- 
tion afterwards  confirms.  The  value  of  the  sacerdotal 
office  is  really  resplendent,  when  the  authority  of  superiors 
is  so  respected,  that  in  nothing  appears  diminished  the 
liberty  of  inferiors.”  According  to  our  opponents,  the  Pon- 
hl!'  hr  acknowledges  that  after  his  Epistle  had  been  com- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


EUTYCHIANI8M,  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.  343 

municated  to  the  bishops  of  Chalcedon,  doubt  was  yet 
legitimate,  and  that  an  examination  was  held  upon  its  con- 
tents which  resulted  in  its  confirmation.  This  objection 
has  already  been,  at  least  implicitly,  answered.  Do  its  pro- 
pounders think  that  St.  Leo  had  forgotten  his  instructions 
to  his  legates,  that  nothing  written  in  the  letter  to  Flavian 
should  be  questioned  in  the  Synod  ? But  looking  into  this 
letter  to  Tlieodoret,  we  find  the  Pontiff  affirming  that  the 
Lord  Himself  had  defined  the  truth  in  his  Epistle  to  Flavi- 
an. Did  he  believe  that  there  was  any  deficiency  of  author- 
ity in  the  definition  by  God  ? We  hear  that  the  doubts  al- 
luded to  were  incited  by  the  demon,  and  this  certainly 
shows  there  was  no  foundation  for  them.  And  of  what 
nature  was  this  examination,  which  “ confirmed  ” the 
teaching  of  the  Pope  ? The  approbation  of  others  does  not 
necessarily  imply  their  superiority.  In  this  very  matter  of 
the  authority  of  Councils,  St.  Chrysostom  ( hom . 52)  holds 
that  the  consent  of  the  world  confirmed  the  decrees  of 
Nice,  but  were  those  decrees  fallible  until  that  assent  was 
given  ? Facundus  (b.  7)  says  that  antiquity  added  weight 
to  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  And  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
itself,  an  assemblage  of  600  bishops,  presided  over  by  the 
legates  of  the  Holy  See,  underwent  “ confirmation  ’ and 
“ approbation,’’  by  order  of  the  emperor  Leo,  and  not  only 
at  the  hands  of  bishops,  but  from  such  monks  as  were  com- 
spicuous  for  sanctity  (1).  It  will  be  said  that  these  prelates 
only  gave  a testimony  as  to  their  faith,  wrhen  they  “ exam- 
ined ” and  signed  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon.  And  just  so, 
we  answer,  did  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon,  when  they  “ ex- 
amined ” and  signed  the  Pontifical  Epistle  to  Flavian. 

(1)  Liberatus;  c.  14.  Facundus;  b.  12. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 


THE  'ACACIAN  SCHISM. 

The  seeds  of  the  great  Greek  schism  of  the  9th  century 
were  sown  several  centuries  before  the  baneful  crop  finally 
matured,  and  bore  its  poisonous  fruit.  If  a mistaken  idea 
of  one’s  own  dignity  is  often  dangerous  to  the  individual  man, 
it  is  just  as  dangerous  to  a community  whose  leaders  foster 
that  spirit  for  the  gratification  of  their  own  ambition.  When 
the  clergy,  and  through  them  the  people  of  Constantinople, 
clamored  for  an  ecclesiastical  recognition  of  the  dignity  of 
“ the  younger  Rome,”  their  consciences  certainly  acquitted 
them  of  any  designs  on  the  peace  of  Christendom.  But 
when  they  had  obtained  that  recognition  ; when,  in  spite  of 
the  repugnance  of  far-seeing  Rome,  their  bishop  had  been 
accorded  an  ecclesiastical  rank  above  that  of  the  venerable 
sees  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  ; they  but  too  often  found  that 
the  newly-acquired  pre-eminence  was  only  an  excitant  to  an 
appetite  appeasable  only  by  universal  domination.  At  the 
time  of  which  we  are  about  to  treat,  the  successor  of  the 
humble  suffragan  of  Heraclea  had  not  yet  dared  to  claim 
the  style  of  “ universal  patriarch,”  but  he  often  exhibited  an 
arrogance  which  caused  the  other  patriarchs  to  chafe,  and 
rendered  the  Supreme  Pontiff  chary  of  contributing  in  any 
way  to  his  vanity.  Under  the  Providence  of  God,  it  waa 
only  because  the  Byzantine  empire  was  not  yet  sufficiently 
corrupt  to  give  him  the  opportunity,  that  Acacius  did  not 
anticipate  the  work  of  Photius.  As  it  was,  he  succeeded  in 
inaugurating  a schism  w’hich  desolated  the  East  for  thirty- 
seven  years.  A sketch  of  the  political  history  of  the  timo 
will  be  necessary,  that  the  reader  may  understand  the  full 
significance  of  the  events  which  we  are  about  to  relate. 

Upon  the  death  of  the  emperor  Marcian  in  the  year  457. 
a military  tribune  named  Leo,  a Thracian  by  birth,  was 
proclaimed  his  successor  by  the  army;  and,  through  the  exer- 
tions of  two  powerful  patricians,  Aspar,  and  his  son  Arda- 

344 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


TH**ACACIAN  SCHISM. 


345 


burus,  the  senate  confirmed  him  in  the  dignity.  Leo  was  a 
firm  Catholic,  and  hence,  from  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  he 
insisted  upon  an  exact  observance  of  the  decrees  of  Chalce- 
don,  which  the  Eutychians  used  to  evade  in  every  possible 
manner.  In  the  year  468,  having  concerted  measures  with 
the  Western  emperor,  Anthymius,  for  the  repression  of 
Genseric  the  Vandal;  he  despatched  a fleet  to  Africa  under 
the  command  of  Basiliscus,  his  brother-in-law.  Through 
the  cowardice  of  Basiliscus,  the  expedition  failed,  and  the 
leader  paid  the  penalty  in  exile.  In  the  meantime,  Aspar, 
to  whom  in  a measure  Leo  owed  his  throne,  had  become 
hostile  to  his  cause,  and  to  oppose  him,  the  emperor  raised 
an  Isaurian  general  named  Zeno  to  the  consulate,  and  gave 
him  his  daughter  in  marriage.  But  the  inferiority  of  Zeno 
soon  forced  Leo  to  seek  a reconciliation  with  Aspar,  and  he 
fulfilled  his  promise  to  make  Ardaburus  Ctosar.  However, 
in  a short  time  he  put  both  father  and  son  to  death  for  con- 
spiracy. Leo  died  in  474,  leaving  as  successor,  a five-year 
old  grandson,  Leo  II.,  son  of  Zeno  by  the  princess  Ariadne. 
Zeno  became  regent,  and  the  imperial  child  dying,  he 
donned  the  purple.  But  Basiliscus,  the  cowardly  brother- 
in-law  of  Leo  L,  now  came  to  the  front,  and  in  the  year  475  (1) 
he  mounted  the  throne.  Looking  around  for  friends  to 
secure  his  precarious  tenure  of  power,  he  thought  he  might 
rely  upon  the  Eutychians,  if  he  could  bind  them  with  ties  of 
gratitude.  He  therefore  issued  an  Encyclical,  in  which  he 
presumed  to  abrogate  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don,  and  many  bishops  subscribed  to  it.  Acacius,  bishop 
of  Constantinople,  now  came  forward  as  the  champion  of  the 
Church.  But  the  event  proved  that  he  was  incited,  not  by 
a pure  zeal  for  religion,  but  by  inordinate  ambition.  Among 
the  canons  of  Chalcedon,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  famous 
28th,  giving  to  the  “ younger  Borne”  the  second  place  in  the 
hierarchy.  Were  this  canon  abrogated,  Acacius  would  be 
indeed  humbled,  and  to  save  it,  he  now  posed  as  the  stren- 
uous defender  of  all  the  decrees.  That  we  are  guilty  of  no 
injustice  to  Acacius  in  denying  that  he  respected  all  the 

(1)  So  holds  Muratorl : Pagi  assigns  the  rebellion  to  the  year  476.  But  there  are  many  law* 
extant  which  were  prumulffated  by  Zeno  In  470 : therefore,  he  had  recovered  his  crown 
in  that  year. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


346 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


religious  decrees  of  Clialcedon,  is  fully  proved  by  his  satis- 
faction with  the  edict  which  Basiliscus  afterwards  issued,  in 
which,  while  revoking  the  1 ncvclical,  that  emperor  says 
nothing  about  the  honor  due  to  the  religious  enactments  of 
the  fourth  Council,  but  is  very  precise  about  the  restoration 
to  Acacius  of  his  suffragan  dioceses. 

When  Acacius  saw  that  the  newly  born  dignity  of  his  see 
was  endangered,  he  used  all  his  influence  to  excite  resistance 
to  the  Encyclical  He*  doffed  the  brilliant  robes  of  his  office 

and  appeared  only  in  garments  of  sombre  color ; his  episco- 
pal throne,  and  even  the  altar,  were  draped  in  mourning. 
The  people,  who  were,  as  a rule,  thoroughly  orthodox,  were 
soon  on  the  verge  of  sedition.  They  persuaded  the  mystic, 
Daniel  the  Stylite,  to  come  down  from  his  column,  and  to 
preach  in  the  capital ; he  denounced  all  manner  pf  evils  to  the 
tyrant,  and  produced  such  an  impression  that  finally  Basi- 
liscus yielded.  Throwing  himself  at  the  feet  of  the  ascetic, 
he  implored  pardon,  recalled  the  Encyclical,  and  confirmed 
the  patriarchal  privileges  of  Constantinople.  But  his  retreat 
was  of  no  avail.  Zeno  returned  from  his  exile  in  Isauria, 
and' though  Basiliscus  tried  hard  to  win  over  the  Catholics 
to  his  side,  he  was  soon  deposed  and  sent  into  Cappadocia 
to  die  of  starvation.  Acacius  had  now  gained  his  point ; it 
remaius  to  be  seen  how  his  true  character  showed  itself  in 
his  relations  with  the  dissensions  which  were  at  this  time 
rending  the  churches  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  A retro- 
spect is  now  necessary. 

When  Dioscorus  was  deposed  from  the  see  of  Alexandria, 
Proterius  was  elected  to  fill  the  vacancy.  But  many  of  the 
people  still  clamored  for  Dioscorus,  and  so  violent  were 
they  in  their  demonstrations,  that  Proterius  was  forced  to 
employ  a military  guard  for  his  protection.  Shortly  after 
his  accession,  Proterius  condemned  a certain  Timothy 
iElurus.  and  a deacon  called  Peter  Moggus,  who,  out  of 
sympathy  for  the  deposed  Dioscorus,  refused  to  obey  the 
new  bishop.  When  the  news  of  the  death  of  the  emper- 
or Marcian  arrived  in  Egypt,  the  Eutychians  thought  it 
safe  to  invade  the  patriarchal  see.  During  the  festivities 
of  Holy  Week  of  the  year  457,  a ferocious  horde  entered 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


THE  AC  AC  IAN  SCHISM. 


347 


Alexandria,  broke  into  the  baptistery  of  the  church  whither 
the  bishop  had  fled,  barbarously  killed  him,  burned  his 
body,  and  scattered  his  ashes  to  the  winds.  Some  of  them 
went  so  far  as  to  devour  portions  of  the  burnt  flesh  (1). 
Leo  I.  had  now  become  emperor,  and  the  Alexandrian  clergy 
besought  him  to  punish  the  murder  of  Protenus,  and  to 
expel  Timothy  JElurus,  whom  the  heretics  had  thrust  into 
the  patriarchal  chair.  The  Eutychians  also  had  recourse 
to  the  throne,  announcing  that  they  received  the  Councils 
of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  but  repudiating  that  of  Chalcedon, 
and  demanding  the  confirmation  of  Timothy  JSlurus.  Leo 
referred  the  question  to  Anatolius  of  Constantinople,  who 
held  a Synod  of  all  the  bishops  then  in  the  capital,  and  vin- 
dicated the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  condemned  Timothy. 
Anatolius  sent  an  account  of  his  action  to  Pope  St.  Leo, 
and  this  Pontiff  wrote  several  letters  to  the  emperor,  urging 
him  not  to  grant  the  demands  of  the  Eutychians,  who  wished 
for  another  General  Council  to  reconsider  the  decrees  of 
Chalcedon.  The  emperor  at  length  put  a temporary  end 
to  the  Alexandrian  troubles  by  exiling  Timothy  to  the  Cher- 
sonese. Another  Timothy,  called  Salophaciolus,  was  now 
legitimately  elected  to  the  see  of  Alexandria,  and  ruled  in 
comparative  peace  until  the  year  461,  when  Timothy  .ffilurus 
reappeared,  and  the  lawful  bishop  was  expelled  by  the 
Eutychians.  When  Pope  Simplicius  heard  of  these  events, 
he  wrote  to  Acacius,  and  made  him  Apostolic  legate,  that  he 
might  the  more  efficaciously  labor  for  the  expulsion  of 
JSlurus,  and  for  the  denial  of  the  demand  of  the  heretics 
for  another  Council.  JSlurus  finally  poisoned  himself,  in 
the  year  478,  and  the  Eutychians  replaced  him  with  Peter 
Moggus.  The  latter  was  expelled  from  the  see  by  order  of 
Zeno,  and  the  legitimate  bishop,  Timothy  Salophaciolus, 
restored.  Upon  his  death  in  the  year  482,  Timothy  was 
succeeded  by  John  Talaja,  but  this  prelate  was  opposed  by 
Zeno,  incited  by  Acacius,  whose  anger  had  been  aroused 
against  Talaja,  because  he  had  not  been  formerly  notified  of 
the  election.  Talaja  had  written  to  the  Pope  and  the  patri- 
arch Calendion  of  Antioch,  and  his  omission  of  a notice  to 

(1)  Evagrius:  b.  2,  c.  8. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


348 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Constantinople,  certainly  appeared  to  indicate,  in  the  mind 
of  Acacius,  that  he  agreed  with  Rome  in  rejecting  the  fam- 
ous 28th  canon  of  Chalcedon.  Acacius  now  suggested  to 
Zeno  that  it  would  be  a good  thing,  in  the  interests  of  peace, 
to  restore  Peter  Moggus  to  Alexandria,  as  he  was  in  reality 
acceptable  to  all,  and  would  readily  support  the  Hrnoticon 
which  Zeno  had  just  issued  (1).  John  Talaja  was  therefore 
deposed,  and  Peter  seated  in  his  place.  In  answering  the 
letters  informing  him  of  the  state  of  affairs,  Pope  Simplic- 
ius said  that,  in  consequence  of  the  serious  allegations 
brought  against  Talaja  (2).  he  had  not  yet  sent  him  com- 
municatory letters,  but  that  he  was  astonished  at  the  res- 
toration of  so  pronounced  a heretic  as  Peter  Moggus  ; he 
would  not  restore  Moggus  to  communion,  even  though  he 
nowr  professed  the  true  faith,  until  he  had  done  penance 
for  his  sins  (3).  In  the  year  483,  Talaja  appealed  to  Pope 
Simplicius,  and  the  Pontiff  wrote  in  his  favor  to  Acacius. 
But  this  arrogant  prelate  would  not  forgive  Talaja’s  seeming 
disrespect  to  his  superior  dignity.  Pope  Felix  III.,  however, 
made  Talaja  bishop  of  Nola, which  diocese  he  ruled  for  many 
years.  Peter  Moggus  finally  anathematized  the  decreed  of 
Chalcedon  and  the  Dogmatic  Epistle  of  St.  Leo,  and  fiercely 
persecuted  the  Catholics ; notwithstanding  which,  Acacius 
persevered  in  his  communion. 

Having  seen  how  Acacius  conducted  himself  in  reference 
to  the  dissensions  of  Alexandria,  we  will  now  give  a brief 
sketch  of  his  connection  with  an  equally  miserable  condition 
of  things  in  Antioch.  One  of  the  intimate  friends  of  Zeno, 
at  the  time  he  was  consul  under  the  emperor  Leo,  was  a 
certain  priest  named  Peter,  who  was  also  surnamed  Fullo, 
he  having  followed  the  fuller’s  craft  while  he  was  a monk. 
Settling  in  Antioch,  Fullo  began  to  preach  the  heresy  of 
the  Theopaschites,  teaching,  that  is,  that  in  the  Crucifixion, 
the  Divinity  was  affixed  to  the  cross  and  placed  in  the 
sepulchre.  Martyrius,  the  bishop,  complained  of  him  to 

(1)  This  edict  was  suggested  to  Zeno  by  Acacius  as  a “ unitive  " measure,  but  It  injured 
the  Church  very  much,  inasmuch  as,  while  it  condemned  Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  and  ap- 
proved the  twelve  Chapters  of  St  . Cyril,  it  was  silent  as  to  Dioscorus,  and  said  nothing  abou* 
St.  Leo's  Dogmatic  Epistle  and  the  Chalcedon  Definition  of  Faith. 

(2)  Acacius  had  charred  him  with  violating  an  oath,  taken  never  to  accept  the  see  of  Alex- 
andria; alio  with  having  obtained  his  election  by  bribery.  (3)  Eptst.  17. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  ACACIAN  SCHISM. 


349 


the  emperor  Leo,  and  that  prince  issued  a decree  prohibit- 
ing any  monk  from  disputing  on  religious  matters  before 
the  people.  At  length,  Martyrius  was  exhausted  by  the 
tumults  and  seditions,  which,  under  the’  protection  of  Zeno, 
the  rebel  continued  to  excite,  and  abdicated  his  see,  saying. 

“ I renounce  a clergy  without  morals,  a rebellious  people,  I 
and  a contaminated  church  ; having  preserved,  in  the  mean- 
time, my  own  sacerdotal  dignity  ” (1).  Fullo  now  seized 
the  episcopal  chair,  but  was  soon  deposed  by  a Synod,  and 
exiled  to  the  desert  by  Leo.  Julian  was  elected  to  fill  the 
vacancy,  but  when  Basiliscus  came  to  power,  he  ordered 
the  restoration  of  Fullo,  which  caused  Julian  to  die  of 
grief.  ( One  of  the  first  episcopal  acts  of  Fullo  was  to  con- 
secrate a man  very  much  like  himself,  a certain  John,  al- 
ready under  a Synodal  censure,  as  bishop  of  Apame. 
But  his  people  not  receiving  him,  John  was  resolved  to  be 
a bishop  somewhere,  so  he  rose  against  Fullo,  deposed  him, 
and  for  three  months  was  satisfied.  But  he  was  soon  de- 
posed by  a provincial  Synod,  and  Stephen  was  elected.  In 
the  year  479,  this  bishop  fell  under  the  murderous  hands  of 
a number  of  Eutychian  schoolboys,  who  dispatched  him  with 
their  sharpened  writing  reeds.  Upon  the  election  of 
Stephen  “ the  Younger,”  Zeno  (now  emperor)  sent  his  old 
friend  Fullo  into  exile  in  Pontus.  In  three  years*  time,  the 
see  of  Antioch  was  again  vacant,  and  Calendion  became 
bishop.  And  now  Acacius  had  another  opportunity  to 
show  the  spirit  that  animated  him.  In  the  year  484,  he 
presumed  to  depose  Calendion,  ostensibly  because  he  was 
unfaithful  to  the  emperor,  but  really  because  he  held  com- 
munion with  Pope  Felix  and  John  Talaja.  Acacius  then 
brought  out  of  exile  the  famous  Peter  Fullo,  and  restored 
him  to  his  usurped  see. 

Having  read  this  sketch  of  the  iniquities  of  Acacius,  the 
reader  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear  that  immediately  upon  | 
the  receipt  of  the  news  of  the  restoration  of  Fullo,  Pope 
Felix  III.  held  a Synod  of  43  bishops, in  which  Acacius, Fullo, 
and  Moggus  were  solemnly  condemned.  The  sentence  was 
made  known  at  Constantinople  by  Tutus,  “ Defender”  of 

(1)  LiRKRATirs;  BrcrkirUi  c.  18. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


350 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Roman  Church,  and  secretly  affixed  to  tlie>  pallium  of 
Acacius  while  at  the  foot  of  the ' altar,  by  some  unknown 
monk.  Supported  by  the  friendship  of  the  imperial  court, 
Acacius  exercised  his  ministry  until  his  death,  which  occurred 
in  the  year  488.  But  the  schism  did  not  cease  with  him. 
His  successor,  Fravitas,  sent  Synodical  letters  to  Peter  Mog- 
gus,  asserting  that  he  did  not  communicate  with  the  Roman 
Pontiff;  he  sent  others  to  Pope  Felix  III.,  saying  that  he 
held  aloof  from  Moggus.  Which  was  truth,  and  which  a 
He,  matters  little  ; it  is  certain  that  he  refused  to  remove  the 
name  of  Acacius  from  the  dyptichs,  and  thereby  entailed  up- 
on himself  the  loss  of  communion  with  Felix.  After  a three 
months’  rule,  Fravitas  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  Euphem- 
ius,  who  would  not  communicate  with  Moggus,  restored 
the  name  of  Felix  to  the  dyptichs,  and  held  a lengthy  cor- 
respondence with  that  Pontiff,  and  with  Gelasius,  but  as  he 
“feared”  to  erase  the  name  of  Acacius  from  the  Ecclesias- 
tical Tables,  he  never  attained  to  communion  with  Rome. 
After  Euphemius,  came  Macedon,  a prelate  of  orthodox  faith 
and  of  pure  life.  He  incurred  the  enmity  of  the  court  by 
his  inflexibility,  and  the  emperor  Anastasius  induced  some 
children  to  accuse  him  of  immorality,  and  then  sent  him 
into  exile.  About  the  year  514,  serious  attempts  were  ini- 
tiated to  reconcile  the  church  of  Constantinople  with  the 
Holy  See,  and  they  came  from  the  Eastern  emperor,  moved 
by  fear  of  a certain  “Master  of  thfe  Soldiery,”  Yitalian,  who 
had  drawn  the  sword  in  the  cause  of  the  faith.  When  An- 
astasius felt  himself  driven  to  the  wall  by  Yitalian,  he  wrote 
to  Pope  Hormisdas,  referring  all  questions  of  faith  and  the 
causes  of  all  the  exiled  bishops  to  the  Pontiff,  and  asking 
for  a Council  to  restore  peace  to  the  Church.  Hormisdas 
sent  four  legates  to  the  capital,  with  instructions  not  to  ac- 
cord ecclesiastical  communion  to  the  Oriental  prelates  or  to 
the  emperor,  unless  they  subscribed  to  the  faith  of  Chalce- 
don,  and  to  the  epistles  of  St.  Leo  against  Nestorius,  Eu  ty ches, 
and  Dioscorus.  He  also  enjoined  an  explicit  condemnation 
of  Acacius  and  Peter  Moggus,  called  the  causes  of  all  exiled 
bishops  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and  ordered  the  immediate 
restoration  of  all  exiled  orthodox  prelates  to  their  sees.  Hor- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  PALMABBS  SYNOD. 


351 


misdas  also  promised  the  emperor  that  he  would  attend  the 
coming  Council,  waiving  the  rule  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs 
never  to  attend  Oriental  Synods  unless  by  means  of  their 
legates.  Athanasius  dismissed  the  Papal  legates,  saying 
that  while  he  condemned  the  persons  and  dogmas  of  Nestor- 
ius  and  Eutyches,  and  received  the  faith  of  Chalcedon,  yet 
he  could  not  accede  to  the  condemnation  of  Acacius,  for  fear 
of  scandalizing  the  Eastern  churches;  he  hoped, however,  that 
a future  Council  would  settle  everything.  Hormisdas  re- 
peated his  efforts  for  peace  in  the  following  year,  but  the 
arrogant  emperor  replied,  “ We  can  bear  being  injured,  but 
not  being  ordered.”  In  the  year  518  the  emperor  Justin  (the 
Elder)  wrote  to  Pope  Hormisdas,  asking  him  to  send  legates 
to  Constantinople,  to  finally  reconcile  that  see  with  that  of 
Peter.  Accordingly,  in  518,  five  Papal  legates  received  the 
signatures  of  John,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  of  the  em- 
peror. to  a formula  of  faith  sent  by  the  Pontiff.  The  con- 
demnation of  Acacius  was  accepted,  and  thus  an  end  was 
put  to  the  schism. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

the  Palmaris  synod,  and  the  cause  of  pope  symmachus. 

Pope  Symmachus,  a Sardinian  by  birth,  and,  at  the  time 
of  his  election,  archdeacon  of  Sumana,  ascended  the  Papal 
chair  on  Nov.  22,  498.  Italy  was  at  that  time  dominated  by 
Theodoric  the  Goth,  who  having  been  sent  in  488  by  the 
emperor  Zeno  to  crush  Odoacer,  had  founded  the  line  of 
Gothic  kings  which  was  to  rule  the  peninsula  until  553,  when 
Nar&es  would  restore  it  to  the  empire.  On  the  very  day 
that  Symmachus  undertook  the  government  of  the  Church, 
a grievous  schism  was  inaugurated  in  Rome  by  the  consecra- 
tion of  an  anti-Pope,  Laurence,  of  the  title  of  St.  Praxedes, 
whose  election  by  a faction  of  malcontents  had  been  pro- 
cured by  the  mcney  of  Festus,  a creature  of  the  emperor 


Digitized  by 


Google 


£52 


STCJDlKSMNiEHURCH  HISTORY. 


Anastasius  (1).  Blood  was  shed  in  the  streets,  and  Theo* 
doric  interfered,  declaring  that  he  should  be  regarded  as 
Pontiff,  who  was  first  elected  by  a majority  of  votes.  But 
the  schism  was  not  easily  healed.  Festus,  aided  by  the 
senator  Probinus,  accused  the  Pontiff  of  various  heavy  crimes, 
and  sided  openly  with  the  Laurentians.  The  schismatics 
went  so  far  as  to  urge  Theodoric  to  appoint  a Visitor  to 
Rome,  whose  province  it  should  be  to  investigate  the  charges 
against  Symmachus.  Peter,  bishop  of  Altino,  was  according- 
ly sent  to  exercise  the  ungracious  office  of  inspector  into  the 
doings  of  the  Holy  See,  to  the  indignation  of  the  Pontiff  and 
the  disgust  of  the  faithful.  A Synod  was  convoked  by  Peter 
in  501^  but  the  Pope  refused  to  attend  it,  or  in  any  way 
countenance  it.  Theodoric,  at  this  time,  was  devoting  all 
his  energies  to  the  consolidation  of  his  power,  and,  although 
an  Arian,  was  desirous  of  conciliating  the  Romans.  He 
there!  ore  endeavored  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  which  his 
officious  representatives  had  originated.  He  desired  that 
another  Synod  should  be  held,  and  the  Pontiff  willingly 
co-operated.  The  first  session  was  celebrated  (502)  in  the 
Julian  Basilica ; the  second  in  that  of  the  Holy  Cross ; and 
the  third  in  the  vestibule  of  St.  Peter’s,  the  entrance  to 
which,  being  designated  as  palmaris  (excellent),  has  given  its 
name  to  the  whole  Synod.  Immediately  upon  entering  the 
Council,  Symmachus  gave  thanks  to  Theodoric  for  having 
furthered  the  meeting,  and  openly  declared  that  it  had  been 
called  by  the  Pontiffs  own  desire  In  the  first  session,  it 
was  shown  that  the  schismatics  had  been  guilty  of  violence 
towards  Symmachus,  and  had  wounded  many  of  his  attend- 
ant clergy.  When  the  Synod  referred  this  crime  to  the 
cognizance  of  Theodoric,  that  Arian  monarch  gave  an  example 
to  Catholic  soverigns  as  to  their  duty  in  treating  ecclesiasti- 
cal causes  : It  was  for  the  discretion  of  the  Synod  to  pre- 

scribe what  should  be  done  in  an  affair  of  such  moment ; and 

(1)  Pope  Anastasius  II.,  the  predecessor  of  Symmachus.  had  sent  legates  to  the  emperor  An* 
astaslus,  to  iuduce  him  to  abandon  the  cause  of  the  Acaclans.  At  the  same  time  with  the 
legates,  there  arrived  at  Constantinople,  a messenger  from  Theodoric,  in  the  person  of  the 
patrician  Festus.  This  nobleman  persuaded  the  emperor  that  he  could  procure  from  Pope 
Anastasius  a subscription  to  Zeno’s  Hennticnn;  hence  the  legates  failed  in  their  mission. 
But  when  F<*stus  came  to  Home  to  carry  out  his  design,  he  found  that  another  Pontiff,  and 
one  whom  he  could  not  hope  to  influence,  was  on  the  throne.  He  looked  around  for  an  In- 
strument and  selected  Laurence. 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


THE  PALMARIS  SYNOD. 


363 


for  the  sake  of  reverence  to  it,  the  king  had  nothing  to  do 
with  ecclesiastical  affairs.  He  committed  to  the  will  of  the 
bishops,  to  decide  what  was  the  more  useful,  whether  to  attend 
to  the  affair  in  question,  or  not ; provided  that  the  venerable 
Council  arranged  that  peace  should  be  enjoyed  by  all  Chris- 
tians in  the  Roman  city.”  The  Synod  then  decreed  that  the 
cause  of  Symmachus  should  be  referred  to  the  divine  judg- 
ment ; that  he  should  be  regarded  as  pure  of  crime,  and  in- 
nocent of  the  charges  brought  against  him  ; that  he  should 
enjoy  all  the  rights  of  the  Supreme  Pontificate,  in  and  out- 
side of  the  city.  As  to  the  schismatic  clergy,  it  was  resolved 
tLat  they  should,  in  mercy,  be  allowed  to  retain  their  bene- 
fices, if  they  gave  satisfaction  to  the  Pontiff ; if  any  of  them 
should  presume  to  officiate,  without  the  Papal  sanction,  they 
should  abide  by  the  canonical  penalties.  The  schismatics  did 
not  submit  to  the  decrees  of  the  Palmaris  Synod ; they 
sought  to  bring  it  into  contempt  by  distributing  among  the 
people  copies  of  an  inflammatory  circular  entitled  “Against 
the  Synod  of  Unbefitting  Absolution.,,  To  counteract  this 
document,  Ennodius,  a deacon  of  Ticino,  wrote  an“  Apology’* 
for  the  Synod ; and  in  another  council,  held  in  603,  the 
fathers  decreed  that  the  said  writing  should  be  regarded 
as  possessing  Synodical  authority  (1). 

Launoy  (2)  adduces  the  history  of  this  Palmaris  Synod  to 

In  this  5th  Symmachian  synod,  the  Pontiff  excommunicated  the  emperor  Anastraios,  as 
an  Acaclan  schismatic,  and  as  a communicant  with  the  heretical  enemies  of  the  Council  of 
Chaloedon.  Rendered  furious  by  this  apostolic  act,  Anastaslus  published  a dlatr*oe  against 
Symmachus,  In  which,  among  other  Injuries,  the  Pope  was  styled  a Manichean.  In  answer, 
Symmachus  wrote  an  Apologetic  Epistle,  in  which  occur  the  following  notewor.-hy  passages: 
“ You  say  that,  the  Senate  conspiring  with  me,  I have  excommunicated  you.  1 Indeed  have 
so  done,  but  have  only  followed  the  reasonable  example  of  my  predet^essors.  We  have  ex- 
communicated Acacius,  not  you ; If  you  recede  from  Acacius,  you  will  not  partake  of  his  ex- 
communication. Have  nothing  to  do  with  bis  excommunication,  and  then  you  will  not  be 
excommunicated  by  us  ; if  youlunite  yourself  with  him,  you  are  excommunicated  by  your- 
self, not  by  us Let  us  compare  the  honor  of  the  emperor  with  that  of  ihe  Pontiff ; the 

former  Is  as  far  from  the  latter,  as  are  the  human  affairs,  which  the  emper»r  directs,  from 
the  divine,  over  which  the  Pontiff  presides.  You,  O emperor,  receive  baptism  from  the  Pon- 
tiff; from  him  you  receive  the  sacraments,  you  ask  his  prayers  and  beg  his  blessing,  and 
beseech  absolution.  You  administer  human  affairs,  he  dispenses  divine  things  to  you  .... 
Perhaps  you  will  retort  that  we  should  be  subject  to  all  the  powers  that  be.  We  do  Indeed 

accord  to  every  power  its  due  resnect,  and  until  it  raises  Its  will  against  thnt  of  God 

Do  you  defer  to  God  in  as,  ana  we  snail  defer  to  God  In  you.  But  If  you  do  not  defer  to  God, 
you  cannot  ase  His  privilege,  whose  laws  you  despise.”  The  student  of  Liturgy  will  note 
that  it  was  this  Synod  which  decreed  that  the  “ Glory  to  God  on  High,”  Instead  of  being 
sung  only  at  the  nocturnal  Mass  of  Christmas,  should  be  sung  on  all  Sundays  and  Feasts  of 
Martyre.  Some  authors  have  ascribed  this  Hymn  to  Pope  Symmachus,  but  we  know  that  It 
already  existed  in  the  time  of  St.  Athanasius.  See  the  latter's  book  on  Holy  Virginity . 

(2)  As  we  will  frequently,  during  the  course  of  our  work,  have  occasion  to  combat  the  views 
of  this  eccentric  writer,  it  may  be  well  to  note  the  opinion  which  Reiser,  a famous  Protes- 
tant author  of  his  day,  entertained  of  him.  In  a work  published  at  Amsterdam  in  16*5,  en- 
titled, “John  Launoy,  a Witness  and  Confessor  of  Evangellco-Cathollc  (i.  e.,  Lutheran) 
Truth,”  we  are  told*that  be  was  a “ doctor  of  the  Sorbonne,  justly  celebrated  among  bis 


Digitized  by 


Google 


354 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


prove  that  a Roman  Pontiff  may  be  cited  for  judgment  in  an 
episcopal  Council.  The  fathers  of  this  Synod,  however, were 
of  a different  opinion.  In  the  Acts,  we  read  that  the  bish- 
ops of  Venice,  ^Emilia,  and  Tuscany,  met  Theodoric  at  Ra- 
venna, on  their  way  to  Rome,  and  asked  why  they  should 
be  compelled,  in  their  old  age,  to  make  such  a journey. 
“ The  aforesaid  most  pious  king  answered  that  many  horrid 
reports  had  reached  him  concerning  the  actions  of  Pope 
Symmachus,  and  that  a Synod  ought  to  judge  as  to  the  truth 
■of  the  hostile  accusations.  Tiie  aforesaid  bishops  suggested 
that  he  who  was  accused  ought  to  convoke  the  Synod,  know- 
ing that  the  merit  and  principality  of  the  Apostle  Peter  had 
first  given  him  a singular  power  over  the  churches,  and  that 
afterwards,  follow  ing  the  commands  of  the  Lord,  the  author- 
ity of  venerable  Councils  had  recognized  it ; nor  was  it  m any 
icay  shown  that  the  bishop  of  the  ajoresaid  See  was  sulfct  to  the 
judgment  of  his  inferiors.  But  the  most  powerful  prince  signi- 
fied that  the  Pope  himself  had  shown,  by  his  letters,  his  con- 
sent to  a convocation  of  the  Synod.  His  Gentleness  was 
then  requested  to  furnish  the  letters  sent  by  the  Pontiff, 
and  he  ordered  that  they  should  be  given  without  delay.’' 
To  escape  the  force  of  this  testimony,  Launoy  replies  that 
by  the  term  “inferiors  ” in  the  cited  Acts , we  are  not  obliged 
to  understand  the  bishops  of  the  Church.  Symmachus  him- 
self, as  well  as  his  predecessors,  designated  the  bishops  as 
his  brethren,  colleagues,  co-ministers,  fellow-priests,  and 
brother-bishops.  Symmachus,  insists  Launoy,  was  so  far 
from  thinking  that  the  bishops  were  his  inferiors,  that  he 
wrote  (1) : “ As  in  the  Trinity  there  is  a one  and  individual 

power,  so,  among  the  various  bishops,  there  is  but  one  priest- 
hood.” Again,  the  bishops  of  the  Roman  Synod  did  not  say 
to  Symmachus : “We  are  not  your  judges ; judge  you  your- 
self. Like  the  Prophet,  you  can  say  to  God  : ‘ To  Thee 
alone  have  I sinned.’  ” On  the  contrary,  these  prelates 
heard  the  accusations,  and  pronounced  judgment  according 

own ; a diligent  and  irreconcilable  enemy  of  the  Roman  Curia,  and  of  all  that  is  therein 
done  and  shamelessly  taught,  against  Scripture  and  orthodox  truth.”  In  a reprint  of 
Launoy’s  epistles,  isshed  at  Cambridge  in  1089,  Saywell  premits  a plea  for  the  reformation 
of  Anglicanism,  “ In  which  are  treated  the  authority  and  use  of  Catholic  tradition  and  Gen- 
eral Councils,  according  to  the  explanation  of  Launoy.” 

(1)  Epistle  to  jEonius  of  Arles. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


THE  PALMABIS  SYNOD* 


35* 


to  the  evidence  before  their  tribunal.  But  Launoy  neglects 
to  observe  that  the  bishops  of  the  Roman  Synod  show,  in 
their  remark  to  Theodoric,  that  they  applied  the  term  “in- 
feriors” to  themselves,  and  not  merely  to  the  clerics,  senators, 
and  people.  Passing  by  the  fact  that  they  called  “ inferiors  ” 
those  whom  the  king  wished  to  judge  the  Pontiff’s  cause,  who 
were  certainly  themselves,  and  no  others,  we  note  that  they 
assign  as  a reason  for  their  assertion,  the  sublime  dignity 
of  Peter  and  the  power  over  the  churches  given  him  by  the 
Lord.  But  this  power  was  over  the  bishops  as  well  as  over 
the  priests  and  people,  over  the  sheep  as  well  as  the  lambs. 
Were  it  otherwise,  the  Lord,  on  account  of  “ the  merit  and 
principality  of  theApostle  Peter,”  would  not  have  “ given 
him  a singular  power  over  the  churches,”  but  only  one  com- 
mon to  the  other  bishops,  and  merely  equal  to  their  own. 
Nor  do  the  words  of  Symmachus,  which  Launoy  cites  from 
the  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Arles,  prove  anything  for  the 
Gallican  theory.  The  priesthood  certainly  is  one,  but  there 
are  in  it,  by  the  institution  of  Christ,  certain  grades  of  dig- 
nity and  power,  the  chief  of  which  is  the  Supreme  Pontifi- 
cate. The  conduct  of  Pope  Symmachus  in  reference  to  the 
bishops  of  Arles  and  Vienne  shows  that  he  regarded  them 
as  “ inferior  ” to  himself  ; when  a controversy  arose  as  to  the 
relative  position  and  privilege  of  these  churches,  he  cited 
both  prelates  before  his  tribunal,  judged  the  cause,  and 
ordered  both  to  observe  the  decrees  of  Pope  St.  Leo  (1). 
Csesarius  of  Arles  regarded  himself  as  “inferior”  to  Sym- 
machus, when  he  wrote  to  him:  “Just  as  the  episcopacy 
takes  its  source  in  the  person  of  Blessed  Peter  the  Apostle, 
so  it  is  needful  that  your  Holiness  should  clearly  indicate, 
by  appropriate  regulations,  what  each  church  should  ob- 
serve.” The  Oriental  schismatics  regarded  themselves  as 
“ inferior  ” to  the  Pontiff,  when,  begging  him  to  dissolve  the 
excommunication  which,  as  followers  of  Acacius,  they  had 
incurred,  they  declared  : “Not  only  the  power  of  binding  is 
given  you,  but  also,  that  you  may  imitate  the  Master,  the 

power  of  loosing. wherefore,  we  beseech  you  to 

cancel  our  later  sentence,  as  Christ  our  Saviour  and 

(\)  Epi*t.  2 and  9. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


356 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Leader  cancelled  the  old  one  on  the  cross.’*  Nor  is  the 
equality  of  the  bishops  with  the  Pontiff  demonstrated  by  the 
judgment  on  Symmachus  pronounced  in  the  Roman  Synod. 
For  it  is  clearly  shown  in  the  Acts  that  the  prelates  did  not 
judge  until  they  were  convinced  of  the  consent  of  the  Pope 
to  such  action.  The  mind  of  the  bishops  is  fully  illustrated 
in  the  Apology  of  Ennodius  of  Ticino,  to  which  they  gave 
Synodical  authority  : “ God  wished  the  causes  of  other  men 
to  be  decided  by  men  ; but  He  reserved  to  His  own  tribu- 
nal, without  question,  the  Ruler  of  this  See To  one 

only  was  it  said  ‘ Thou  art  Peter,’  <fcc.  By  the  voice  of  the 
holy  Pontiffs  the  dignity  of  this  See  is  made  venerable 
throughout  the  world  ; for  wherever  there  are  any  faithful, 
there  submission  to  it  is  practised,  and  it  is  called  the  Head 
of  the  whole  body.  It  seems  to  me  that  to  this  (dignity) 
refers  the  saying  of  the  Prophet : ‘ If  this  is  humbled,  to 
what  help  can  you  recur  ? ’ ” That  the  mind  of  the  bishops, 
in  this  matter,  was  the  same  as  that  of  Ennodius,  is  shown 
by  the  Acts  of  the  Fifth  Synod,  in  which  action  was  taken 
against  those  who  contemned  the  Palmaris  Synod.  The  pre- 
lates decreed  : “ ‘Let  the  book  be  brought  before  us, and  in  our 
presence  read  and  approved,  which  was  written  with  Synodal 
authority  by  Ennodius,  against  those  who  presumed  to  mut- 
ter against  the  4th  Synod.’  Which  having  been  read,  and 
unanimously  approved,  the  Holy  Synod  said : ‘Let  these  be  pre- 
served for  future  times,  and  let  them  be  observed  by  every 
one,  and  in  every  point.  Let  this  book  be  regarded  by  all 
as  entirely  Synodical,  and  let  it  be  placed  between  the  Actions 
of  our  Fourth  and  those  of  our  Fifth  Synod  ; and  let  it  be 
held  the  same  as  the  Decrees  of  these  Synods,  because  it 
has  been  written  and  approved  by  the  Synodical  authority.* 
To  which  things  the  thrice  Blessed  Pope  replied : ‘ Let  it 
be  done  according  to  the  will  of  you  all,  and  as  you  judge; 
let  the  book  have  Apostolic  authority,  and  let  it  be  placed, 
as  you  say,  among  the  Apostolic  Decrees,  and  let  it  be  held 
by  all  as  are  held  the  other  Apostolic  Decrees.’  ” 

That  the  bishops  of  those  days  were  fully  persuaded  that 
the  Supreme  Pontiff  was  not  amenable  to  their  tribunal,  is 
also  indicated  by  the  manner  in  which  the  prelates  of  Gaul 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  PALMARIS  SYNOD. 


357 


received  the  news  of  the  celebration  of  the  Pcdmaris  Synod. 
Perhaps  they  did  not  know  that  Symmachus  had  given  his 
consent  to  the  holding  of  the  assembly,  but,  at  any  rate,  the 
following  complaining  letter  was  sent,  in  their  name,  by 
A vitus  of  Vienne,  to  the  senators  Faust  and  Symmachus  : 
“ While  we  were  anxious  and  fearful  for  the  cause  of  the 
Roman  Church,  feeling  that  our  State  tottered  when  its 
Head  was  attacked,  ....  there  was  brought  to  us  a copy  of 
-a  sacerdotal  decree,  which  the  bishops  of  Italy,  assembled 
in  the  City,  had  issued  concerning  Pope  Symmachus.  Al- 
though the  assent  of  a large  and  reverend  Synod  rendered 
this  constitution  worthy  of  observation,  we  nevertheless 
knew  that  Pope  Symmachus,  if  he  had  been  accused  in  the. 
world,  ought  to  have  received  consolation  from  his  fellow- 
priests,  rather  than  judgment we  cannot  easily  un- 

derstand with  what  reason  or  law  a superior  i3  judged  by 

his  inferiors the  same  venerable  Synod  reserved  for 

divine  examination  the  cause  which,  saving  the  reverence 
due  to  it,  it  had  rashly  undertaken.  .....  Which  being 
known,  I,  a Roman  senator  and  a Christian  bishop,  do 

solemnly  call  upon  you* that  you  do  not  less  respect 

the  See  of  Peter  in  your  Church,  than  you  do  the  height  of 

power  in  the  City If  anything  weakens  in  other 

priests,  it  may  be  strengthened.  But  if  the  Pope  of  Rome  is 
called  into  question,  not  merely  a bishop,  but  the  episcopate, 

seems  to  totter He  who  governs  the  fold  of  the  Lord 

will  give  an  account  of  his  care  of  the  lambs  entrusted  to 
him  ; for  the  rest,  it  is  not  the  province  of  the  flock  to  terrify 
the  shepherd,  but  of  the  Judge.” 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  did  Pope  Symmachus  allow 
his  case  to  be  submitted  to  the  Pahnaris  Synod,  if  he  did 
not  recognize  its  authority  in  the  premises  ? Simply  be- 
cause, in  certain  circumstances,  it  may  become  the  duty 
of  a person  high  in  authority  to  see  that  no  stain  is  inflicted 
upon  his  character  ; to  guard  against  any  loss  of  reputation 
which  would  render  his  rule  less  efficacious  ; to  provide,  in 
fine,  against  any  scandalizing  of  the  weak.  Thus,  more  than 
once  have  Roman  Pontiffs  wished  even  the  emperors  to  attest 
-their  innocence  of  crimes  imputed  to  them.  St.  Sylvester, 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


358 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


accused  of  sacrilege,  referred  his  cause  to  the  tribunal  of 
Constantine.  St.  Damasus,  in  similar  circumstances,  laid 
his  case  before  Gratian.  We  read  in  the  Book  of  Lives  of  the 
Pontiffs  that  Pelagius  I.  wished  to  vindicate  hijnself,  before 
the  people,  of  the  charge  of  having  conspired  against  the  life 
of  Pope  Yigilius.  Anastasius  tells  us,  in  the  Life  of  Leo  III., 
that  the  Pontiff  brought  together  a large  number  of  bishops 
and  abbots,  both  Romans  and  Gauls,  in  the  church  of  St. 
Peter,  to  certify  to  his  innocence  of  certain  crimes  laid  at 
his  door  ; that  the  prelates  declared  : “ We  do  not  dare  to 
judge  the  Apostolic  See,  which  is  the  head  of  all  the  churches 
of  God.  For  by  it,  and  by  its  Vicar, we  are  all  judged;it,  how- 
ever, is  judged  bynoone.  Such  has  been  the  ancient  custom.” 
The  spirit  which  animated  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  when  they 
sometimes  permitted  their  actions  to  be  discussed  by  their 
inferiors,  was  well  illustrated  by  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (1) : 
Certainly  Peter  had  received  the  power  of  the  heavenly  king- 
dom, that  whatever  he  should  bind  on  earth,  &c  . . . . And 
because  he  had  entered  unto  the  Gentile  Cornelius,  having 
been  impelled  by  the  Spirit  to  do  so,  the  faithful  took  issue 
with  him.  Nevertheless,  this  same  prince  of  the  Apostles 
did  not  answer  the  complaints  of  the  faithful  by  appealing 
to  his  power,  but  by  reason  ; he  explained  the  thing  in  de- 
tail. If,  when  he  was  accused  by  the  faithful,  he  had 
thought  only  of  the  power  which  he  had  received  over  the 
Church,  he  could  have  replied  that  the  pastor  should  not  be 
reproved  by  the  flock  committed  to  his  care.  But  had  he 
alleged  anything  as  to  his  power,  when  the  faithful  com- 
plained, he  certainly  would  not  have  been  a teacher  cf  meek- 
ness.” 

(1)  Book  9,  epist.  38. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XXXL 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS,  AND  THE  FIFTH  GENERAL 

COUNCIL. 

A brief  sketch  of  the  history  of  those  personages,  whose 
Aberrations  gave  rise  to  this  controversy,  is  necessary,  that 
the  student  may  grasp  its  bearings  in  an  intelligent  manner. 
The  prime  cause  of  the  dispute,  although  it  occurred  after 
his  death,  was  Theodore,  bishop  of  Mopsueste  in  Cilicia. 
In  his  youth,  he  was  a protege  of  St.  Chrysostom,  and  it 
was  owing  to  the  remonstrances  and  tender  exhortations  of 
this  holy  doctor,  that  he  did  not  abandon  his  ecclesiastical 
Aspirations  for  the  allurements  of  a secular  life  (1).  He 
was  a man  of  erudition,  and  was  very  zealous  against  here- 
sy; indeed,  he  was  accused  of  being  too  fond  of  violence  in 
that  matter.  Yet  he  did  not  himself  escape  contagion,  and 
he  communicated  the  poison  toNestorius,  and  was  also  the 
prime  originator  of  Pelagianism.  It  is  said  that  he  taught 
two  Persons  in  Christ,  with  only  a moral  union  between 
them ; also,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  only  from  the 
leather ; again,  that  original  sin  is  not  communicated  to  all 
men.  He  made  a new  liturgy  which  is  used  by  the  Nesto- 
rians  of  to-day.  According  to  Lardner  (2),  he  showed  him- 
self unfavorable  to  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord.  Some  Protes- 
tant critics  have  affected  to  doubt  that  Theodore  really 
taught  Nestorianism,  but  the  great  respect  of  the  Nestori- 
ans  of  all  times  for  his  memory  (they  honor  him  as  a saint) 
is  suspicious.  Only  a lew  fragments  of  his  works  have 
come  down  to  us.  He  died  in  the  communion  of  the  Church, 
but  the  Fifth  General  Council  condemned  his  works  as  in- 
fected with  Nestorianism.  Theodore t,  bishop  of  Cyr,  in  the 
province  of  the  Euphrates  (386-458),  was  also  instrumental  in 
giving  rise  to  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters.  He 
viras  learned  and  eloquent,  and  a voluminous  writer.  A 

(1)  Letters  of  Chrysostom  to  “ The  Fallen  Theodore. 

(2)  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History , vol.  II.,  p.  899. 

359 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


360 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


friend  of  Nestorius,  lie  at  first  thought  that  this  heresiarch 
merely  expressed  himself  badly,  but  that  his  sentiments 
were  orthodox.  Opposed,  however,  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria, whom  he  called  an  Apollinarist,  he  wrote  against  the 
Anathcmatisms,  but  afterwards  recognized  the  mistake.  He 
was  cited  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  there  he 
anathematized  Nestorius,  and  was  pronounced  a Catholic. 
But  unfortunately  his  writings  against  St.  Cyril  remained, 
and  as  they  were  composed  in  the  heat  of  argument,  they 
were  often  inaccurate  in  expression.  Hence  it  was  that 
these  writings  also  were  condemned  by  the  Fifth  Council. 
The  third  unconscious  cause  of  much  trouble  was  Ibas, 
bishop  of  Edessa,  who,  in  a letter  to  a certain  Persian, 
named  Maris,  denied  that  the  Word  took  flesh  from  the  Vir- 
gin Mary.  He  also  attacked  St.  Cyril,  and  defended  Theodore 
and  Nestorius,  but,  in  tim$  he  also  was  received  as  a Catho- 
lic by  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon.  At  the  period  of  which  we 
are  about  to  write,  many  bishops  believed  that  it  was  nec- 
essary to  condemn  these  three  men,  because  the  Nestori- 
ans  were  pretending  that  their  works  had  been  approved  at 
Chalcedon.  The  Eutycliians,  also,  on  their  side,  were  anx- 
ious to  procure  the  condemnation  of  these  writings,  in  or- 
der to  check  the  Nestorians  ; the  great  patron  of  the  “Aceph- 
alous ” Eutycliians  was  Theodore  of  Caesarea,  who  assured 
the  emperor  that  these  heretics  would  come  into  the  Church 
if  the  condemnation  were  effected. 

A glance  at  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  time  is  now 
necessary.  Upon  the  death  of  Pope  Agape tus  (536),  the 
Roman  clergy  were  influenced  by  the  threats  of  Theodatus, 
king  of  the  Goths,  to  raise  to  the  Pontificate  Silverius, 
a son  born  to  Pope  Hormisdas  (d.  523)  before  he  received 
orders.  War  was  being  w’aged  between  Theodatus  and  the 
emperor  Justinian,  and  the  Goth  relied  upon  the  fidelity  of 
Silverius.  Scarcely  had  the  new  Pontiff  been  enthroned, 
when  he  received  from  the  ex- prostitute,  now  the  empress, 
Theodora,  a request  to  abrogate  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon 
against  the  Eutycliians.  As  Silverius  intrepidly  refused 
her  demand,  the  empress  soon  excogitated  an  impious 
scheme  for  the  attainment  of  her  end.  There  was  residing. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


361 


at  the  imperial  court  a certain  deacon  of  the  Roman  Church, 
named  Vigilius,  whom  Pope  Agapetus  had  sent  to  Constan- 
tinople as  legate.  This  ecclesiastic  had  already  promised 
Theodora  that  if  she  would  secure  his  elevation  to  the  Pa- 
pacy, he  would  further  her  wishes  in  all  things  ; hence  the 
wily  woman  turned  now  to  him  as  a willing  instrument. 
She  furnished  him  with  letters  to  the  imperial  general.  Be- 
lisarius,  then  at  Ravenna,  and  in  them  the  latter  was  informed 
as  to  her  designs.  Proceeding  to  Rome,  Belisarius  ac- 
cused the  Pontiff  of  a design  to  deliver  the  city  to  the  Goths, 
seized  his  person  by  treachery  (1),  and  sent  him  to  Lycia. 
He  finally  died  in  the  year  538,  whether  by  the  sword  or 
not,  is  unknown.  The  intruder  Vigilius  now  became  the 
legitimate  Pope,  for  the  Roman  clergy,  anxious  to  avoid  a 
schism,  canonically  elected  him  to  the  vacancy.  Then  was 
seen  a change  which  certainly  seemed  the  work  of  God. 
This  weak  and  ambitious  man,  who  had  scrupled  not  to 
stain  his  priestly  character  while  an  intruder,  had  no  soon- 
er become  the  true  successor  of  St.  Peter,  than  he  became 
a model  of  Pontifical  firmness.  He  wrote  to  Justinian,  de- 
claring that  he  “ received  the  four  General  Councils,  the 
Dogmatic  Epistle  of  St.  Leo,  and  the  Decrees  of  his  prede- 
cessors.” 

The  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters  occurred  during 
this  Pontificate,  and  the  following  is  a synopsis  of  its  his- 
tory. Pelagius,  Apostolic  legate  at  Constantinople,  during 
the  Pontificate  of  Agapetus,  and  Hennas,  patriarch  of  that 
city,  had  influenced  the  emperor  Justinian  to  issue  an  edict 
against  certain  doctrines  of  Origen.  This  condemnation 
greatly  offended  Theodore,  bishop  of  Cffisarea,  and  he  tried 
to  induce  the  emperor  to  condemn  three  certain  actions  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  This  Synod  had  received  Ibas  of 
Edessa  and  Theodoret  of  Cyr  into  communion,  without  any 
inquisition  into  their  writings,  and  thus  it  seemed  to  approve 
of  their  attacks  on  St.  Cyril,  and  hence,  said  the  Eutych- 
ians,  it  lessened  the  authority  of  the  Council  of  Ephe- 

(1)  The  Pope  had  fled  for  safety  into  the  basilica  of  St.  Sabine,  and  the  stepson  of  Bellsa- 
rius  promised  on  oath  that  if  he  would  grant  an  interview  to  the  general,  his  person  would 
be  respected.  When  he  was  seized,  Sllverius  was  stripped  of  the  Pontifical  insignia,  dressed 
as  a monk,  and  thus  thrust  into  exile.  In  a short  time,  Justinian  ordered  his  restoration*, 
but  Belisarius  delivered  him  to  Vigilius,  who  exiled  him  to  the  isle  of  Majorca. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


362 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


bus.  It  had  also  restored  Theodore  of  Mopsueste.  Now 
Theodore  of  Caesarea  and  the  Acephali  heretics  saw  that  if 
these  actions  at  Chalcedon  were  condemned,  the  authority 
of  that  Council  would  be  greatly  impaired,  to  their  own  very 
great  benefit.  This  was  the  secret  of  the  controversy  ; the 
Acephali  desired  to  bring  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  into  dis- 
repute. The  word  “Chapter,”  when  it  occurs  in  the  title, 
And  throughout  the  course  of  this  dispute,  means  a certain  act 
of  the  C<  uncil ; so  that  when  the  condemnation  of  the  Three 
Chapters  is  spoken  of,  allusion  is  made  to  an  annulling,  so  far 
as  it  could  be  effected,  of  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon  according 
communion  to  Theodore  of  Mopsueste,  Theodoret  of  Cyr  and 
Ibas  of  Edessa.  Justinian  was  about  to  issue  an  edict  against 
the  Acephali,  when  their  secret  friend,  Theodore  of  Ciesa- 
rea,  influenced  him  to  rather  condemn  the  three  actions  of 
Chalcedon  which  alone,  said  Theodore,  kept  the  Acephali 
from  receiving  the  Council’s  decrees  and  injured  the  peace 
of  the  Church.  In  the  year  543  was  issued  the  imperial 
decree  abrogating  the  three  Chapters ; condemning,  there- 
fore, Theodore  of  Mopsueste,  the  teacher  of  Nestorius,  and 
the  enemy  of  Origenism  (which  was  the  tender  point  of  the 
Caesarean  prelate) ; condemning  also  the  epistle  of  Ibas  of 
Edessa,  written  to  Maris,  and  reprobating  the  writings  of 
St.  Cyril  against  Nestorius,  while  praising  Theodore  of 
Mopsueste  ; condemning  finally  the  writings  of  Theodoret 
of  Cyr,  which  attacked  the  Anuthematisms  of  Cyril  and  de- 
fended the  person  of  Nestorius.  Justinian  sent  a copy  of 
his  edict  to  each  of  the  patriarchs  for  their  assent  and  sig- 
nature. Those  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem, 
yielded  to  fear  and  subscribed  ; Mennas  of  Constantinople 
also  signed,  but  on  condition  that  his  act  would  be  void  if  the 
flomau  Pontiff  should  disapprove  of  it.  Many  bishops  sub- 
scribed, but  deposited  a protest  with  Stephen,  the  Papal 
legate,  to  the  effect  that  they  had  been  compelled  by  threats 
of  deposition  (1).  The  emperor  in  vain  tried  to  procure 
the  signatures  of  Stephen,  and  of  Dacius  of  Milan,  who  was 
then  in  the  capital.  Among  the  many  bishops  who  refused 
to  sign  the  edict,  was  Pontianus,  who  wrote  to  Justinian  in 

(1)  Faccndus  ; b.  4,  c.  4. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


363 


a manner  which  showed  that  he  well  understood  the  animus 
of  those  who  had  prompted  it : “ At  the  close  of  your  epistle 
we  discovered  that  we  were  expected  to  condemn  Theodore, 
and  the  writings  of  Theodoret,  and  the  epistle  of  Ibas, 
which  did  not  a little  grieve  us.  • Their  sayings  have  not 
reached  us.  And  if  they  had  come  down  to  us.  and  if  we 
read  therein  some  apocryphal  things  against  faith,  we  might 
surely  reject  thos?  sayings,  but  yet  we  would  not  precipi- 
tately condemn  the  authors.  If  they  were  still  living,  and 
had  not  retracted  their  errors,  most  justly  could  they  be 
condemned.  But' now,  to  whom  shall  be  cited  our  sentence 
of  condemnation  ? There  is  no  room  for  correction.  How- 
ever, most  pious  emperor,  I fear  lest,  with  the  pretext  of 
this  condemnation,  the  Eutychian  heresy  mayjaise  its  head, 
and  that  while  we  attend  to  lesser  matters,  we  may  come 
into  collision  with  a greater  heresy.  And  why  should  we  wage 
war  with  the  dead,  when  no  victory  can  ensue  from  such  a 
contest?  They  have  already  stood  before  that  Judge,  from 
whom  no  one  appeals.  Through  Him  then,  in  whom  you 
honor  and  cherish  us,  we  beseech  your  Clemency,  that  peace 
may  endure  all  your  days,  and  that,  while  you  seek  the 
condemnation  of  the  dead,  you  may  not  kill  the  many  living 
who  will  disobey  you,  for  you  will  be  forced  to  account  for 
it  to  Him  who  is  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.” 
Whether  many  of  the  responses  to  the  imperial  edict  were 
so  simply  sublime,  and  to  the  point,  as  this  of  the  noble 
Pontianus,  we  know  not,  but  Justinian  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  he  would  not  succeed  unless  by  meeting  the  uni- 
versal episcopate,  face  to  face,  in  the  imperial  city.  He 
therefore  asked  for  a Syno.l,  alleging  the  need  of  bringing 
the  Acephali  back  to  the  fold,  but  in  reality  to  obtain  the 
condemnation  of  the  famous  Chapters. 

Pope  Yigilius,  who  had  been  as  iron  in  his  firmness  in 
resisting  the  imperial  demand,  thought  best  to  attend  this 
Synod,  though  it  was  contrary  to  the  traditions  of  the  Papacy 
to  attend  such  a meeting  in  person,  and  although  he  hesitat- 
ed to  leave  his  immediate  flock,  then  in  danger  from  the 
Gothic  invader.  He  left  the  Eternal  City  in  the  year  545, 
but  remained  in  Sicily  for  a year,  both  because  he  desired 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


364 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Synod  to  be  held  in  that  island,  and  because  he  wished 
to  be  near  Rome  in  case  it  was  troubled  by  the  barbarians. 
He  arrived  in  Constantinople  on  Jan.  25,  547,  and  was 
worthily  received  by  Justinian.  He  immediately,  in  spite  of 
tbe  empress  Theodora  s love  for  them,  promulgated  a decree 
against  the  Acephali  (1),  and  suspended  the  patriarch 
Menna;  soon,  however,  at  the  request  of  Theodora,  and 
owing,  probably,  to  the  saving  clause  which  the  patriarch 
had  affixed  to  his  signature  to  the  edict,  the  suspension  was 
revoked.  In  the  beginning  of  the  next  year,  548,  the  emperor 
obtained  from  the  Pontiff  permission  for  a discussion  upon 
the  Three  Chapters  in  a Synod  of  seventy  bishops,  but  as 
there  was  very  little  harmony  among  the  prelates,  Yigilius 
reserved  the  question  to  himself,  and  issued  a decree  styled 
Judicatum.  In  this  document,  he  condemned  the  Three 
Chapters,  “ saving , in  all  things , the  respect  due  to  the  Council  of 
Chalcedony  thus  avoiding  any  reflection  on  the  restoration 
of  Theodore,  Theodoret,  and  Ibas,  and  condemning  anything 
wrong  in  their  writings.  Far  from  being  a harbinger  of 
peace  as  PopeVigilius  had  fondly  hoped, this  Judicatum  proved 
a firebrand.  Throughout  the  West,  the  Pontiff  was  accused 
of  failing  in  respect  to  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  and  the 
Africans  went  so  far,  in  550,  as  to  pronounce  him  anathema. 
In  such  a state  of  affairs,  both  Pope  and  emperor  deemed  a 
General  Council  necessary,  and  letters  were  sent  to  the 
principal  sees  in  all  the  provinces,  convoking  the  Council  in 
Constantinople.  Very  few  of  the  Western  bishops  seemed 
willing  to  attend,  and  as  the  Pontiff  was  averse  to  any 
decided  action  in  their  absence,  a new  trouble  arose.  In 
vain  did  Justinian  try  to  persuade  Yigilius  to  unite  with 
the  Eastern  prelates  (of  whom  he  felt  sure)  in  condemning 
the  Three  Chapters.  At  the  suggestion  of  the  irrepressible 
Theodore  of  Caesarea,  the  emperor  issued,  in  551,  in  his  own 
name,  a condemnatory  edict,  and  ordered  it  to  be  placarded 
in  various  basilicas.  When  the  Pope  heard  of  this  high- 
handed proceeding,  he  threatened  to  excommunicate  all 
who  would  obey  the  edict.  This  action  of  Vigilius  so  en- 
raged the  emperor  that  he  ordered  his  arrest,  and  it  would 

(1)  St.  Gregory  the  Great  ; b.  2,  epist.  86,  to  the  Bishops  of  Istria* 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  OP  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS.  366 

have  gone  hard  with  him,  had  not  the  very  soldiers  refused 
to  execute  the  imperial  mandate.  Justinian  then  solemnly 
swore  to  respect  the  person  of  the  Pope,  but  there  was  good 
reason  to  distrust  his  sincerity,  and  Vigilius  fled  to  Chalcedon, 
and  took  sanctuary  in  the  basilica  of  St.  Euphemia.  The 
constancy  of  the  Pontiff  was  not  unrewarded,  for  the  emperor 
withdrew  his  edict,  and  the  bishops,  who  had  signed  it, 
begged  pardon  for  the  injury  “ done  to  his  Holiness  and  the 
Holy  See.”  Vigilius  returned  to  Constantinople,  and  re- 
newed his  consent  to  a General  Council,  but  providing  that 
the  East  and  theWest  should  be  equally  represented.  The 
Council  met  in  May,  553,  with  an  attendance  of  165  bishops, 
but  the  Pontiff  refused  to  attend  it,  or  to  accredit  legates  to 
it,  on  account  of  the  small  number  of  Western  prelates  pres- 
ent. Nevertheless,  the  Synod  proceeded  to  an  examination 
of  the  Three  Chapters.  When  the  fifth  session  had  been 
held,  the  Pope  sent  to  Justinian  a document  containing  his 
decision  as  to  the  question  at  issue.  He  had  already,  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  withdrawn  the  Judicatum , but  this  new  de- 
cree, styled  a Const  'dutum , was  essentially  of  the  same  tenor. 
He  condemned  the  errors  of  Theodore  of  Mopsueste,  but 
spared  his  name  ; he  declared  that  nothing  should  be  under- 
taken in  reference  to  Theodoret  or  Ibas,  since  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  had  refused  to  pass  judgment  upon  tlieir  writ- 
ings ; he  commanded  finally  that  all  should  act  in  the  matter 
of  the  Three  Chapters  in  accordance  with  this  Constitutum. 
This  document  js  dated  May  14th,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  emperor  received  it  before  the  end  of  the  Synod,  or  in- 
tentionally suppressed  it ; at  all  events,  the  seventh  session 
was  held  on  the  26th  of  May,  and  then  Justinian  adduced  the 
Judicatum  of  Vigilius  and  the  anathemas  pronounced  against 
its  opponents,  as  proofs  that  the  Pope  had  condemned  the 
Chapters.  Then  the  Council,  in  its  eighth  session,  definitively 
condemned  them,  in  these  words : “ We  condemn  and 

anathematize,  together  with  all  other  heretics  who  have  been 
condemned  and  anathematized  by  the  four  aforesaid  Coun- 
cils. and  by  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  : The- 
odorus,  who  was  bishop  of  Mopsueste,  and  his  impious  writ- 
ings ; and  whatever  Theodoret  wickedly  wrote  against  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


366 


STUDIES  nf.  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


true  faith  and  against  the  twelve  Chapters  of  St.  Cyril,  and 
against  the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  what  he  wrote  in 
defence  of  Theodore,  and  of  Nestorius.  We  also  anathema- 
tize the  impious  Epistle  which  Ibas  is  said  to  have  written 
to  Maris  the  Persian,  in  which  he  denies  that  God  the 
Word  took  flesh  from  the  ever  Virgin  Mary,  the  holy  Mother 
of  God,  and  was  made  man  ; and  in  which  he  calumniates 
Cyril  of  holy  memory,  who  taught  the  truth,  as  like  unto 
Apollinaris. . . . and  defends  Theodore  and  Nestorius,  and 
their  impious  dogmas  and  writings.  We  therefore  anathema- 
tize the  aforesaid  Three  Chapters,  that  is,  &c/*  Then  follow 
fourteen  anathematisms,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the 
twelfth,  the  Council  condemns  the  name,  as  well  as  the  writ- 
ings of  Theodore  ; but  in  the  two  last,  it  condemns  merely 
the  writings  of  Theodoret  and  Ibas. 

Pope  Vigilius  confirmed  the  5th  General  Council,  and 
hence  it  acquired  the  quality  of  ceeumenicity,  which,  during 
its  sessions,  it  certainly  wanted,  owing  to  the  absence  of 
Papal  legates.  Some  writers  have  held  that  Vigilius  at 
first  refused  to  confirm  the  Synod,  and  wras  therefore  exiled 
by  the  emperor  ; that  after  five  years  he  yielded.  But  this 
is  proved  false  by  the  confirmatory  epistle,  which  says  that 
it  was:  “ Given  on  the  6th  of  the  Ides  of  December,  in  the 
27tli  year  of  the  reign  of  our  lord  the  ever  august  Justinian/’ 
This  date  is  of  the  year  553,  scarcely  six  months  after  the 
close  of  the  Council.  Again,  the  defenders  of  the  Three 
Chapters  are  silent  as  to  this  exile,  and  it  would  have  been 
an  excellent  argument  for  their  cause,  if  they  could  have 
alleged  that  the  Pontiff  did  not  willingly  and  freely  condemn 
them.  The  confirmatory  decree  of  Vigilius  was  addressed 
to  “ Eutycliius,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  and  the  en- 
tire previous  Holy  Synod  ” and  reads  as  follows : “ If 
wisdom  requites  that  what  is  (justly)  complained  of,  should 
be  withdrawn,  and  we  ought  not  to  be  ashamed  to  publish 
that  which  an  after-study  of  the  truth  shows  to  have  been 
omitted  in  the  beginning,  how  muclfmore  proper  is  it  to 
follow  such  a course  in  ecclesiastical  discussions?  Espec- 
ially since  the  fathers,  and  notably  the  Blessed  Augustine, 
who  excelled  in  the  study  of  Scripture  and  was  a master  in 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


367 


Roman  eloquence, re  vised  his  writings  and  corrected  nissay- 
ings,  supplying  that  which  he  had  omitted  and  afterwards 
discovered.  We  also,  incited  by  such  examples,  have  never 
ceased,  in  the  controversy  of  the  above-mentioned  Three 
Chapters,  to  investigate  the  truth  in  the  writings  of  the 

fathers We  therefore  auathematize  and  condemn 

the  aforesaid  Three  Chapters ; that  is,  the  impious  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsueste,  together  with  his  impious  writings  ; and 
whatever  Theodores  wickedly  wrote,  and  also  the  Epistle 
said  to  have  been  written  by  Ibas,  in  which  the  aforesaid 
blasphemies  are  contained.  We  also  subject  to  the  same 
anathema  whoever  believes  that  at  any  time  these  Chapters 
ought  to  have  been  received  or  defended,  or  whoever  shall 

try  to  subvert  this  condemnation Whatever  has 

been  hitherto  done,  either  by  me,  or  by  others,  in  defence  of 
the  aforesaid  Three  Chapters,  by  this  present  writing  we 
declare  null  and  void.” 

Several  questions  are  to  be  considered  before  we  can  dis- 
miss this  controversy.  First,  we  must  examine  the  justice 
of  the  decree  issued  by  the  Fifth  Council  in  condemnation 
of  the  Chapters.  We  will  commence  with  Theodore  of  . 
Mopsueste.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  heretical  nature 
of  some  of  his  teachings.  In  his  Symbol,  he  says  that 
Christ  was  merely  man ; that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  only 
by  adoption  ; that  there  were  two  Persons  in  Christ,  only 
morally,  not  hvpostatically,  united.  This  Symbol  was  con- 
demned, in  its  6th  Action , by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and 
is  styled  by  St.  Cyril  4<  the  first  bubbling  forth  ofNestorian 
impiety”  (1).  In  his  book  on  the  Incarnation , he. says  that 
the  Word  assuming,  and  the  man  assumed,  are  one  only  as 
man  and  wife  are  one:  Among  the  petitions  sent  toProclus 
of  Constantinople,  asking  for  the  condemnation  of  Theodore, 
is  one  from  the  clergy  of  Armenia  and  Persia,  in  which  they 
represent  him  as  asking,  “ How  can  God  and  man  be  one,  { 
in  real  unity  ? He  who  saves,  and  he  who  is  saved  ? He 
who  was  before  all  ages,  and  he  who  appeared,  coming  from 
Mary?”  And  then  they  demand  that  as  Nestorius  was 
condemned  at  Ephesus  by  name,  and  Theodorus  unnamed 

• (1)  Epist.  toProclus. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


368 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


(since  his  errors  were  condemned),  so  this  real  author  of 
the  heresy  be  now  reprobated  by  name.  Rabbula  of  Edessa 
says  to  St.  Cyril,  that  Theodore  “ first  declared  that  the 
Holy  Virgin  was  not  the  Mother  of  God.”  Leontius  de- 
clares that  Theodore  prepared  a liturgy  for  the  Mass  which 
was  full  of  blasphemy,  that  he  composed  virulent  comment- 
aries on  many  books  of  Scripture.  It  is  certain  that  Theo- 
dore was  regarded  as  a heretic  in  his  own  church  of  Mop- 
sueste  long  before  the  Fifth  Council,  for  in  a Synod  held 
there  by  order  of  Justinian,  the  clergy  testified  that,  as  far 
back  as  their  memory  went,  the  name  of  Theodore  had  been 
expunged  from  the  dyptichs,  and  in  its  place  that  of  St. 
Cyril  substituted. 

As  for  the  writings  of  Theodoret,  they  were  manifestly 
heretical,  for  they  attack  the  doctrines  approved  by  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  and  patronize  Nestorius,  a condemned 
heretic.  In  his  epistle  to  Andrew  of  Samosata,  Theodoret 
thus  speaks  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  : “ Egypt  again  mad- 
vy  rages  against  God,  and  wars  with  Moses  and  Aaron  and 
His  servants ; the  greater  portion  of  Israel  is  in  union  with 
the  enemy,  and  few  indeed  are  the  sane  who  suffer  in  the 
cause  of  piety.  Everything  venerable  for  piety  is  down- 
trodden. They  who  were  deposed,  exercise  the  sacerdotal 
ministry,  and  those  who  deposed  them,  groan  at  home  (1). 
The  Egyptians,  Palestinians,  Pontians,  Asiatics,  and  the 
Westerns,  play  at  holding  a Synod.”  In  his  epistle  to 
Dornnus  of  Antioch,  he  exhorts  the  patriarch  to  prevent 
approbation  of  Cyril’s  anatliematisms  by  the  coming 
Council.  In  another  epistle  to  Dornnus,  written  after  the 
death  of  St.  Cyril,  he  thus  insults  his  memory  : “ At  last, 
indeed,  the  wicked  man  is  dead.  The  good  and  the  benign 

migrate  before  their  time  ; the  bad  lead  a long  life 

Your  Holiness  should  order  the  corpse-bearers  to.  place  an 
enormously  heavy  stone  on  his  grave,  lest  he  come  here 
again  to  show  his  unstable  will.  Let  him  take  his  new 
dogmas  to  hell ; there  let  him  preach,  as  he  so  likes  to  do, 
day  and  night.’  As  for  Theodore t’s  sympathy  with  Nes- 

(1)  The  saintly  groaners  are,  of  course,  John  of  Antioch  and  his  worthy  followers,  whose 
exploits  we  have  narrated  when  treating  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


369 


torius,  we  need  adduce  only  the  following  (1 ) : “ Tour  Holi- 
ness knows  that  if  one  should  anathematize,  without  restric- 
tion, the  doctrine  of  this  most  holy  and  venerable  bishop 
(Nestorius),  it  would  be  the  same  as  to  condemn  piety  it- 
self. 

The  Epistle  of  Ibas  was  also  justly  condemned  by  the 
Fifth  Council,  because  it  accused  the  Synod  of  Ephesus  of 
precipitation  in  condemning  Nestorius ; it  vituperated  the 
doctrine  of  St.  Cyril,  approved  at  Ephesus ; it  praised  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsueste  as  a preacher  of  truth  and  a doctor  of  the 
Church  ; and  it  finally  contains  doctrine  per  se  Nestorian. 
The  first  point  of  accusation  is  proved  by  the  words  “ They 
deposed  Nestorius  from  the  episcopacy,  without  any  investi- 
gation.” The  second  is  shown  by  the  following:  “A  con- 
test ensued  between  those  two  men,  Nestorius  and  Cyril, 
and  they  interchanged  injurious  language,  which  was  a scan- 
dal to  the  hearers.  Nestorius  said  in  his  books,  that  the 
Blessed  Mary  is  not  the  Mother  of  God,  so  he  was  thought 
by  many  to  belong  to  the  sect  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  who  said 
that  Christ  was  a mere  man.  Cyril,  however,  refuting  the 
words  of  Nestorius,  was  slippery  (2),  and  was  found  to  have 

fallen  into  the  error  of  Apollinaris They  brought 

forth  and  approved  the  Twelve  Chapters  written  by  Cyril 
against  the  constituted  doctrines  of  the  true  faith,  and  con- 
sented to  them  as  agreeing  with  the  faith.”  As  for  his  praise 
of  the  Mopsuestene,  the  following  is  sufficiently  pointed: 
“ The  blessed  Theodore,  preacher  of  the  truth,  and  a doctor 
of  the  Church,  not  only  while  living  attacked  the  heretics  in 
the  cause  of  faith,  but  after  his  death  supplies  in  his  books 
spiritual  arms  to  the  sons  of  the  Church.  He  who  dares  every- 
thing has  presumed  to  openly  anathematize  him,  who,  for 
zeal  of  God’s  cause,  not  only  turned  his  own  city  from  error 
to  the  truth,  but  taught  the  distant  failing  churches  with  his 
erudition.”  That  he  also  taught  Nestorianism  is  certain,  for 
he  asks,  “ How  is  it  possible  to  receive  the  W ord,  which  is  from 
the  beginning,  for  the  Temple  which  was  born  of  Mary?.  . . 
No  one  dares  to  say  that  one  is  the  nature  of  the  Deity  and 

(1)  Epist.  to  Andrew  of  Samosata,  in  Marius  Mercator . 

g)  The  text  has  “ lubricavit .” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


370 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


riie  Humanity,  but  he  confesses  the  Temple  and  the  Inhabi- 
tant therein,  who  is  the  one  Son  Jesus  Christ”  This  dis- 
tinction of  the  Temple,  born  of  Mary;  and  the  Inhabitant — 
the  Eternal  Word,  was  a favorite  with  Nestorius,  nor  is  its 
heresy  at  all  diminished  in  the  case  of  Ibas,  because  he 
avows  one  Person.  Nestorius  also  declared  that  there  was 
but  one  Person  in  Christ,  but  one  morally,  not  consubstan- 
tially.  Facundus  (1),  a most  energetic  defender  of  the 
Three  Chapters,  says  that  “ The  assertion  that  there  is  one 
Person,  does  not  exclude  the  subterfuges  of  the  Nestorians, 
who,  when  they  saw  the  innumerable  testimonies  of  the 
fathers  Droving  that  God  the  Word  and  the  assumed  Man 
were  one  in  Person,  thought,  or  affected  to  think,  that  this 
signified  the  dignity  of  authority;  so  that  Jesus  Christ  may 
be  said  to  have  borne  the  Person  of  the  Word  in  the  same 
manner  as  did  the  Apostle,  writing  to  the  Corinthians , //.,  2, 
&c.” 

The  Fifth  General  Council  has  been  severely  condemned 
by  certain  critics  for  its  anathematization  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsueste.  He  had  died  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  ; 
indeed,  he  had,  while  living,  never  been  deprived  of  it.  For 
nearly  a century  he  had  been  beyond  the  judgment  of  men,  and 
it  savors  of  indelicacy,  at  least,  to  inveigh  against  the  dead. 
Such  sentiment  as  this  would  be  praiseworthy,  and  would 
certainly  be  respected  by  the  Church,  if  the  weighty  inter- 
ests of  the  living,  and  of  future  generations,  did  not  carry 
her  out  of  the  realm  of  sentimentality.  Several  instances 
of  regard  for  the  dead  can  be  cited,  which  at  first  sight  seem 
to  rebuke  the  Fifth  Council  for  cruelty,  so  far  as  in  it  lay, 
to  Theodore.  Thus,  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  when 
obliged  to  condemu  the  millenary  doctrines  of  the  dead 
bishop  Nepos,  spared  his  memory,  because  he  had  departed 
this  life  in  the  communion  of  Holy  Church.  But  this  case 
is  very  different  from  that  cf  the  Mopsuestene  prelate.  Tho 
error  of  Nepos  had  never  been  condemned  by  the  Church ; 
the  question  was  obscure,  and  well  disputed,  and  several  of 
the  fathers  coincided  with  him.  But  Theodore  taught  doc- 
trines already  proscribed  in  the  cases  of  Paul  of  Samosata, 

(i)  Uiji/h  r.,  i.  j. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


371 


and  Nestorius,  and  he  attacked  some  of  the  principal  points 
of  doctrine,  which  were  defended  by  all  the  fathers.  The 
moderation  then,  which  in  the  case  of  Nepos,  and  similar 
ones,  was  commendable,  would  have  been  out  of  place  in 
that  of  Theodore.  Pope  St.  Leo  certainly  tells  us  (1)  that 
“ there  is  no  necessity  to  discuss  the  merits  and  acts  of  those 
who  have  thus  died ; for  the  Lord  our  God,  whose  judgments 
cannot  be  comprehended,  has  reserved  to  His  justice  that 
which  the  sacerdotal  ministry  could  not  carry  out.*’  But 
St.  Leo  here  alludes  to  the  soul's  state  in  the  other  world ; 
the  passage  does  not  at  all  affect  the  Church’s  right  to  pass 
judgment  on  the  acts  committed  under  her  jurisdiction.  It 
is  said  that  Theodore  died  in  the  peace  of  the  Church.  So 
far  as  we  can  tell,  he  did  not,  for  though  he  nominally  be- 
longed to  the  body  of  the  Church,  he  persisted  in  his  heresy, 
and  deserved  open  excommunication,  to  the  very  last. 
Hence,  Benignus  of  Heraclea  accuses  of  lying  those  who 
said  that  Theodore  died  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  : 
“He  dies  in  the  communion  and  peace  of  the  Church  who 
up  to  the  hour  of  death  preserves  and  teaches  the  true  dog- 
mas of  the  Church ; that  Theodore  did  not  preserve  and 
teach  the  true  dogmas  of  the  Church  is  certain  from  his 
blasphemies.’  St.  Cyril  did  not  expressly  anathematize 
Theodore  at  Ephesus,  but  his  moderation  proves  nothing 
against  the  Church's  right  to  do  so.  And  Cyril’s  great 
object  was  the  conversion  of  those  who  were  devoted  to  the 
memory  of  the  Mopsuestene  bishop,  and  that  object  was 
better  served  by  leniency  towards  his  person. 

We  now  approach  the  question,  whether  or  not  the  Fifth 
Council,  in  its  treatment  of  the  Three  Chapters,  contradicted 
the  Council  of  Clialcedon.  In  this  latter  assembly,  Theodo- 
ret  and  Ibas  were  received  as  orthodox,  and  Theodore  of 
Mopsueste  was  not  condemned.  It  is  not  difficult  to  show 
that  the- two  Councils  stand  in  no  need  of  conciliation.  In 
the  first  place,  the  fathers  of  the  Fifth  Council  expressly  pro- 
fess their  veneration  for  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  and  in 
their  subscriptions  to  the  Acts , use  the  words,  “ receiving  the 
four  Holy  Synods,  that  is,  of  Nice,  Constantinople,  Ephesus 

(1)  Epist.  to  Theodore  of  Forum  Julium. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


372 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


L,  Chalcedon,  and  what  was  defined  by  them/’  St.  Gregory 
the  Great  alludes  to  the  apparent  conflict  between  the  two 
Synods,  and  he  says  (1) : “ As  we  sincerely  cherish  you,  so 
much  the  more  do  we  grieve,  because  you  put  faith  in  ignor- 
ant and  foolish  men,  who  not  only  do  not  know  what  they  say, 
but  can  scarcely  understand  what  they  hear We  de- 

clare, upon  our  conscience,  that  nothing  was  moved  concern- 
ing the  faith  of  the  Chalcedon  Council,  and  in  nothing  was 
it  violated ; but  whatever  was  done  in  the  time  of  the  afore- 
said Justinian,  was  done  without  any  prejudice  to  the  faith 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon/’  But  it  is  not  true  that  one 
Council  approved  that  which  the  other  condemned.  With 
regard  to  the  epistle  of  Ibas  of  Edessa,  which  was  condemned 
by  the  Fifth  Council,  it  was  not  received  by  the  fathers  of 
Chalcedon  as  orthodox,  nor  could  it  have  been,  since  the 
Chalcedon  synod  approved  of  the  judgment  given  against 
Ibas  at  Bery  turn.  In  this  judgment,  Ibas  was  compelled  to 
anathematize  Nefctorius,  and  to  receive  the  Ephesian  decrees. 
Now,  as  in  the  epistle  to  Maris,  the  Synod  of  Ephesus  is 
vituperatively  treated  for  its  alleged  unjust  condemnation  of 
Nestorius,  it  is  plain  that  the  Chalcedon  fathers,  approving 
the  judgment  of  Berytum,  could  not  have  accepted  the  epis- 
tle as  orthodox.  Ibas  was  welcomed  at  Chalcedon ; his  writ- 
ings were  not.  He  was  received  as  a Catholic,  because  he 
had  contradicted  the  errors  in  his  epistle.  “ Anatolius, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  said : I now  put  aside  any  suspic- 
ion about  him  (Ibas),  because  he  consents  and  subscribes 
to  the  decree  on  faith  now  given  by  the  Holy  Council,  and 
to  the  epistle  pf  the  Most  Holy  Leo,  Archbishop  of  Rome.” 
So  say  the  records  of  Chalcedon ; they  also  tell  us  that  Ju- 
venal of  Jerusalem  said,  in  the  matter  of  Ibas,  “ The  divine 
Scriptures  command  us  to  receive  those  who  are  converted. 
Therefore  we  receive  those  who  return  from  heresy  ; I there- 
fore consent  that  the  most  reverend  Ibas,  as  he  is  now  or- 
thodox, and  has  sought  our  clemency,  should  preserve  his 
episcopacy,  because  ho  is  old/  Again,  Ibas  was  not  restored 
to  his  diocese,  before  he  had  anathematized  Nestorius.  When 
ordered  to  do  so,  he  replied,  “I  have  already  anathematized 

(1)  Epist.  to  T heodolindoL,  Queen  of  the  Lombards, 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS.  373 

Nestorius  and  his  dogma  in  writing,  and  I now  anathematize 
him  ten  thousand  times.  ' 

•for  can  we  trace  any  dissension  between  the  Fourth  and 
Fifth  Councils  in  the  matter  of  Theodoret.  The  fathers  of 
Chalcedon  were  exceedingly  opposed,  to  his  writings,  for 
when  he  entered  the  Council  chamber,  there  resounded 
through  the  hall  cries  of  “ He  is  no  bishop,'’  and  “ Theodoret 
has  attacked  Cyril;  we  condemn  Cyril,  if  we  receive  Theodoret.” 
After  the  termination  of  the  sessions  on  faith,  he  was  or- 
dered to  anathematize  Nestorius,  and  although  he  hesitated 
for  a time,  he  finally  did  so.  If  the  Chalcedon  Synod  did 
not  demand  from  him  an  explicit  condemnation  of  his  own 
writings,  it  was  because  he  had  implicitly  given  one  by  sub- 
scribing to  the  fifth  Action , in  which,  after  the  condemnation 
of  Nestorius,  the  fathers  received  “ the  epistles  of  Blessed 
Cyril,  bishop  of  the  Alexandrian  church,  and  the  synodical 
letters  to  Nestorius  and  others  in  the  East.”  So  the  affair 
is  explained  by  Pope  Pelagius  II.  (1). 

The  case  of  Theodore  of  Mopsueste  shows  no  more  dif- 
ference between  the  two  Councils  than  do  those  of  Ibas  and 
Theodoret.  Because  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  did  not  con- 
demn Theodore,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  believed  his  writ- 
ings innocuous.  Nor  should  we  believe  so,  because  he  is 
praised  by  Sts.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  and  Chrysostom,  and 
by  other  fathers.  In  the  first  place,  this  praise  is  not  so  sure, 
for  there  are  good  reasons  for  denying  the  authenticity  of 
the  epistle  of  Chrysostom  cited  by  Theodore’s  partisans,  and 
the  praise  of  Nazianzen  seems  to  have  been  meant,  not  for 
the  Mopsuestene  Theodore,  but  for  another.  But  if  this 
praise  is  authentic,  we  may  answer  with  Benignus  of  Hera- 
olea,  who,  taking  the  place  of  the  archbishop  of  Thessalonica 
in  the  fifth  session  of  the  Fifth  Council,  said,  “ It  is  of  no 
avail  to  those  who  act  wickedly,  that  it  sometimes  happens 
that  some  persons  write  in  their  favor,  either  through  ignor- 
ance or  presumption,  or  even  by  a kind  of  condonance.  For 
St  Basil  wrote  some  things  for  Apollinarius,  but  that  did 
not  free  him  from  condemnation.  And  Athanasius  wrote 
several  epistles  to  Apollinarius,  as  to  one  holding  the  same 

(t;  EpisL  to  the  Bishops  of  Istria. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


374 


STUDIES  IN  CiIUKCH  HISTORY. 


faith ; nevertheless,  even  after  the  death  of  Apollinarius,  he 
wrote  entire  books  against  him,  when  he  had  found  out  his 
blasphemies ; and  those  things  which  he  wrote  when*  he 
deemed  the  faith  of  Apollinarius  his  own,  were  of  no  profit 
to  the  latter.  And  even  Leo  of  holy  memory,  Pope  of  an- 
cient Rome,  both  received  Eutyckes,  and  wrote  in  approval 
of  him,  though  he  afterwards  condemned  and  anathematized 
him  as  a heretic.”  In  fine,  those  who  praised  Theodore, 
did  so  for  one  thing ; the  Fifth  Council  condemned  him  for 
another.  Before  we  dismiss  the  question  of  the  agreement 
of  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Councils  in  this  matter  of  the  Three 
Chapters,  we  would  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
following  passage  of  Pope  St.  Leo  (1) : “If  anything  which 
does  not  pertain  to  faith  is  reported  to  have  been  done  by 
those  brethren  whom  I sent  in  my  place  to  the  Holy  Synod, 
it  will  be  of  no  weight  whatever  ; for  they  were  sent  by  the 
Apostolic  See  to  be  defenders  of  the  Catholic  faith,  by  the 
destruction  of  heresy.  For  whatever  is  offered  for  episcopal 
examination,  beyond  the  special  causes  for  Synodal  Councils, 
may  bear  some  reason  for  adjudication.”  In  these  words* 
observes  Pope  Pelagius  II.  (2),  “ permission  is  plainly  ac- 
corded to  reconsider  whatever  was  there  done  about  per- 
sons, and  outside  of  causes  of  faith.”  Even  then,  if  the  Fifth 
Council  had  reconsidered  the  action  of  the  Fourth  in  the 
matter  of  Theodore,  Theodoret,  and  Ibas,  there  would  have 
been  no  essential  difference  between  the  two  Synods,  for,  to 
use  the  words  of  Pelagius,  “ The  special  cause  of  Synodal 
Councils  is  faith.  Whatever,  therefore,  is  treated  of,  outside 
of  faith,  can  be,  according  to  the  teaching  of  Leo,  recalled  to 
judgment.”  But  we  have  said  enough  to  show  that  the  Fifth 
Council  merely  completed,  in  the  case  of  the  condemnation  of 
the  Three  Chapters,  a work  which,  for  prudential  reasons, 
the  Fourth  had  left  in  abeyance. 

We  must  now  treat  of  the  action  of  Pope  Vigilius  in  this 
controversy.  It  would  not  be  very  strange  if  a Pontiff  who 
entered  upon  his  sublime  office  under  such  malignant  aus- 
pices as  those  which  frowned  upon  Vigilius  at  the  outset* 

(1)  K}>i*L  to  \fnrhnus  of  Antioch. 
i.'.~  liiahops  of  lutria. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


376 


should  have  proved  a very  weak  Pope.  But  we  have  seen 
that  a miracle,  at  least  of  grace,  was  worked  in  his  case. 
The  truculent  schismatic  \Vas  transformed  into  the  zealous 
Pastor,  and  at  no  time  during  his  stormy  Pontificate  did  he 
betray  a spirit  unequal  to  martyrdom,  had  duty  called  him 
to  it.  His  manner  of  action,  during  the  controversy  of  the 
Three  Chapters,  has  been  attacked  by  Protestants,  Jansen- 
ists, and  all  enemies  of  Papal  supremacy.  We  shall  pass 
over  the  accusation  made  by  the  first  class,  that  is,  that  Vi- 
gilius  erred  in  faith,  for  it  is  sufficient  to  be  only  moderately 
versed  in  the  records  of  his  time,  to  know  that  he  abhorred 
all  heresy,  especially  that  of  Nestorius  and  that  of  Eu- 
tyches.  The  Jansenists.  however,  have  insisted  that  Vigil- 
ius  erred  in  a “ dogmatic  fact.”  How  they  could  do  so,  unless 
they  were  thoroughly  blinded  by  prejudice,  we  are  at  a loss 
to  understand.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  a dogmatic  fact  of  this 
kind  that  in  a writing  there  be  defined  as  existing,  either  a 
truth  or  an  error.  Now,  neither  in  the  Judic  dum,  norin  the 
Constitution,  did  Vigilius  act  unless  upon  persons.  Pope 
Pelagius  II.  says  (1)  that  during  the  reign  of  Justinian,  cer- 
• tain  Chapters  were  discussed,  “ outside  of  faith,”  and  “ no 
action  taken,  unless  on  persons.’  Gregory  the  Great  says 
(2)  that  “ action  was  taken  only  in  regard  to  certain  per- 
sons.” And  Vigilius  himself,  in  his  epistle  confirming  the 
Fifth  Council,  expressly  asserts  the  same.  Again,  in  order 
to  prove  him  guilty  of  an  error  in  matter  of  dogmatic  fact, 
the  Jansenists  should  show  that  Vigilius  at  some  one  time 
approved  of  the  writings  in  question.  This  they  cannot 
show,  for  the  whole  course,  of  events  proves  that  the  Pontiff 
wished  to  leave  the  Chapters  just  as  they  were  left  at  Chal- 
cedon,  neither  condemned  nor  approved.  The  foes  of  the 
Papacy  accuse  Vigilius  of  fickleness.  First,  they  say,  he 
defended  the  Three  Chapters,  and  then  he  condemned 
them.  But  it  is  false  that  he  defended  them  ; he  simply 
ordered,  and  for  good  reasons,  their  being  left  in  the  condi- 
tion that  had  seemed  good  to  the  Fourth  Council.  Let  us 
take  a glance  at  the  course  of  events.  When  the  emperor 

(1)  Epist.  to  Childebert.  King  of  the  Frank*. 

(8)  Epist.  to  the  Bishops  of  I stria. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


376 


8TUDIRS  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Justinian  presumed  to  condemn  the  Three  Chapters,  Vigil- 
ius  threatened  with  excommunication,  not  only  the  imperial 
meddler,  but  all  who  would  subscribe  to  the  edict  And 

t 

why  ? Apart  from  the  crime  committed  by  Justinian,  there 
were  powerful  reasons  why  the  Pontiff  should  take  such  a 
resolution.  All  the  Occidentals,  and  a goodly  number  of 
the  Orientals,  were  indignant  at  what  they  regarded  as  an 
attack  on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Their  mind  is  seen  in 
the  epistle  which  the  clergy  of  Italy  gave  to  the  legates  of 
the  Frankish  king  Childebert,  who  were  setting  out  for 
Constantinople  to  protest  against  Justinian’s  sacrilegious 
violence  on  the  Pontifical  person : “ The  most  blessed  Pope 
Vigilius  going  to  Constantinople,  or,  that  the  truth  be  de- 
clared, being  almost  dragged  there,  they  began  to  expect  his 
condemnation  of  certain  chapters,  by  which  condemnation 
the  Holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon  would  be  in  every  way  broken 
up.  But  when  Pope  Vigilius  would  not  consent  to  this 
thing,  they  acted  so  violently,  that  he  cried  out  in  the  as- 
sembly, * Although  you  hold  me  captive,  yet  you  cannot, 
make  captive  Blessed  Peter  the  Apostle  ’ ” (1).  It  then  ap- 
peared to  the  Pontiff  that  both  parties  might  be  pacified  by  * 
such  a condemnation  of  the  Chapters  as  would  leave  intact 
the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Fourth  Council.  Hence  he 
drew  up  the  Judicatum , and  in  the  Encyclical  which  he 
issued  on  the  condemnation  of  Theodore  of  Caesarea,  he  de- 
clares his  motive  to  have  been  the  desire  of  peaceful  unity, 
“For  the  last  five  years,”  he  says,  addressing  the  obstinate 
Acephalus,  “ we  have  shown  our  patience,  granted  us  by  the 
divine  favor,  both  to  you  and  to  those  who  have  been  se- 
duced by  you.  First  indeed,  when,  in  order  to  repress  scan- 
dal, we  condescended  to  the  wishes  of  certain  parties,  whose 
minds  we  thought  might  be  pacified  by  some  arrangement 
(2),  and  whom  yon  had  been  exciting  for  many  years.  We 
thought  to  order  some  things  medicinally  for  a time,  but 
under  the  condition  that,  all  disturbance  being  quelled,  no 
one  should  hereafter,  either  by  word  or  letter,  presume  to 
touch  the  mattei.”  But  Vigilius  had  hoped  in  vain.  The 
Africans,  Illyrians,  Dalmatians,  and  others,  persisted  in  de- 

(1)  Councils  of  GauU  v.  1,  p.  2 9i.  (2)  The  text  has  “ dispenmlione .” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


377 


fending  the  Chapters,  and  even  two  deacons  of  the  Roman 
Church,  Rusticus  and  Sebastian,  accused  the  Pontiff  of  de- 
spising the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Vigilius  therefore  with- 
drew his  Judicatum , and  ordered  all  discussion  of  the  Chap- 
ters to  be  avoided  until  a General  Council  could  be  assem- 
bled. This  we  are  told  in  the  epistle  of  the  Italian  clergy 
already  cited:  “ Although  the  Africans,  Illyrian. , and  Dal- 

matians did  not  acquiesce  in  the  Pope’s  action,  nevertheless 
Vigilius  was  soon  urged  again  to  condemn  the  Chapters, 
without  any  mention  whatever  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
But  he  was  unwilling  to  do  this,  and  saying  that  he  was 
pressed  too  strongly,  he  told  the  most  serene  prince  that- 
there  should  come  bishops  from  all  the  provinces,  five 
or  six  from  each,  and  that  after  a tranquil  discus* sion  the 
affair  should  be  peacefully  arranged,  because,  with- 
out the  consent  of  all,  he  could  not  acquiesce  in  what 
called  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  into  question  and  caused 
scandal  in  his  brethren.”  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Pope 
refused  to  attend  the  Council.  Not  only  were  there  scarce- 
ly any  Western  prelates  present,  but  the  votes  of  the  bish- 
ops were  not  free.  We  learn  from  Liberatus  (1)  that  bribes 
were  given  and  accepted;  that  those  who  refused  to  con- 
demn the  Chapters  were  deposed  and  exiled,  and  that  many 
fled  for  safety.  When,  however,  Vigilius  perceived  that  the 
Council  would  certainly  condemn  the  Chapters,  he  feared 
still  more  for  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  issued  his  Con- 
8titutum,  in  which  he  contended  for  the  sparing  of  the  per- 
sons, at  least,  of  those  in  question.  But  in  this  document 
he  launched  no  anathema  against  those  who  disagreed  with 
him.  Finally,  he  confirmed  the  Fifth  Council,  and  decreed 
anathema  against  those  who  would  hereafter  defend  the 
Chapters.  This  he  did  “ after  an  investigation  of  the  truth, 
and  the  Lord  revealing.”  He  saw  that  the  Nestorians  great- 
ly abused  the  Chapters,  and  he  knew  that  the  Western 
bishops,  with  few  exceptions,  would  obey  his  decree,  even 
though  their  prejudices  were  hurt.  In  fine,  the  time  had 
come  to  settle  forever  a question  which  was  a continual 
menace  to  the  peace  of  Christendom.  If  it  is  a mark  of  in- 

(1)  Breviary , c.  34. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


378 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


constancy  to  act  with  prudence,  and  to  change  when  one’s 
better  knowledge  demands  such  a course,  then  Vigilius  was 
fickle,  and  with  him  St.  Augustine  and  many  other  great 
irten  who  deemed  such  a proceeding  eminently  proper. 

In  his  search  for  facts  to  support  the  theory  of  the  su- 
premacy of  a General  Council,  Bossuet  (1)  seizes  upon 
those  we  have  narrated,  and  asserts  that  they  manifest  a 
belief  in  that  theory,  on  the  pari  of  both  Yigilius  and  the 
Fifth  Council.  That  this  conclusion  is  not  warranted  by 
the  facts,  is  easily  shown.  When  Justinian  was  urging, 
with  all  his  power,  the  bishops  of  the  Council  to  condemn 
the  Chapters,  his  prime  argument  was  the  example  of  the 
Pontiff.  But  if  the  Council  regarded  itself  as  superior  to 
the  Pope,  why  did  the  emperor  use  such  an  argument  ? Again, 
Vigilius  showed  his  authority  over  the  Council,  when,  hav- 
ing promised  Justinian  to  give  his  opinion  within  twenty 
days,  he  ordered,  through  the  deacon  Pelagius,the  assembled 
prelates  to  decide  nothing  : “Keeping  the  ancient  and 
regular  order  of  things,  not  to  attempt  to  utter  anything 
before  the  promulgation  of  our,  that  is^  the  Apostolic  See’s 
sentence,  lest  there  should  again  arise  occasion  for  the 
trouble  which  has  been  allayed.”  This  language  is  not  that 
of  an  inferior.  And  so  far  was  it  from  the  mind  of  the 
Council  to  establish  anything  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Pon- 
tiff, that  the  fathers  rather  allege  his  example  as  their  reason 
for  condemning  the  Chapters.  In  the  seventh  session,  Jus- 
tinian insisted  that  Vigilius  was  favorable  to  the  condem- 
nation, and  while  he  carefully  withheld  the  Constitutum , 
which  would  have  proved  the  contrary,  he  ordered  Constan- 
tine, questor  of  the  palace,  to  read  several  epistles  of  the 
Pope  which  appeared  to  be  of  that  tenor.  Hence,  in  the 
eighth  session,  the  Council  condemned  the  obnoxious  Chap- 
ters, and  “ because,' ’ say  the  bishops,  “ it  has  happened 
that  the  most  religious  Vigilius,  now  residing  in  this  im- 
perial city,  has  been  present  at  all  that  was  done  about 
these  Three  Chapters,  and  has  frequently  condemned  them, 
both  in  writing  and  without  writing.”  Finally,  Vigilius  did 
not  regard  the  Fifth  Council  as  canonical ; much  less  then 

(1)  Defence  of  the  Declaration , p.  2,  b.  13,  c.  30. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTROVERSY  OF  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS. 


379 


did  he  deem  it  his  superior.  When  the  patriarch  Euty- 
chius  requested  him  to  come  tothe  Council,  he  replied,  as  we 
read  in  the  Acts  of  the  first  session,  that  it  was  his  pleasure 
that  the  controversy  should  be  discussed  “ in  a canonical 
Synod,”  for  lie  regarded  the  absence  of  the  Western  pre- 
lates as  militating  against  its  universality.  And  he  not 
only  refused  to  attend,  but  in  the  Constitutum  so  carefully 
suppressed  by  J ustinian,  he  declared  its  acts  null  and  void. 
Even  when  he  decided  to  confirm  the  condemnation  of  the 
Chapters,  he  showed  that  he  regarded  the  Synod  as  of  no 
value  until  it  received  his  approbation.  For  he  says,  “ Those 
things  have  been  safely  carried  out,  which  had  to  be  defined 
by  us,  through  the  revelation  of  the  Lord,  and  an  investi- 
gation of  the  truth.”  He  does  not  even  style  the  assembly 
a Synod,  but  defines  those  as  his  “ brethren  and  co-priests  ” 
who,  holding  the  faith  of  the  four  General  Councils,  con- 
demn the  Three  Chapters.  The  reader  will  also  observe 
that  it  was  only  by  the  exertions  of  Pope  Pelagius  II.  and 
St.  Gregory  the  Great  that  the  Fifth  Council  was  re- 
ceived in  the  West;  so  far  was  the  Gallican  theory  from 
the  mind  of  the  sixth  century. 

When  treating  of  the  heresies  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
we  omitted,  out  of  respect  to  his  name,  and  because  it  is  by 
no  means  sure  that  he  erred  in  faith,  to  say  anything  of 
Origen.  But  if  there  ever  was  a man  who  should  have 
prayed  to  be  delivered  from  his  friends,  he  was  one.  His 
disciples  were  so  obstinate  in  upholding  whatever  he  said, 
and  were  so  persistent  in  quoting  him  as  a teacher  of  their 
vagaries,  that,  especially  since  most  of  his  works  are  lost, 
he  must  bear  a brunt  perhaps  undeserved.  We  allude  to 
Origen,  because  the  Fifth  General  Council  condemned  a sect 
of  heretics  who  rejoiced  in  his  name.  The  Origenists  ap- 
pealed to  the  great  master  s writings  when  they  contended 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  only  the  adoptive  Son  of  God ; that 
human  souls  exist  before  their  union  with  bodies  ; that  the 
pains  of  hell  are  not  eternal ; that  even  Satan  and  his  fel- 
lows will  one  day  be  freed  from  punishment.  The  decree 
of  the  Fifth  Council  on  Origenism  was  specially  directed 
against  certain  monks  of  Egypt  and  Palestine.  Catholio 


Digitized  by 


Google 


380 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


authors  are  not  unanimous  with  regard  to  it.  Alexandre 
strenuously  contends  that  Origen  was  proscribed  by  the 
Fifth  Synod  (1),  while  the  erudite  Gamier  (2)  thinks  that  the 
proscription  occurred  in  a Synod  held  five  years  previously 
by  the  patriarch  Menna,  and  which  is  sometimes  styled  by 
old  writers  “the  Fifth  Council.”  The  Origenists  of  whom 
we  have  spoken  must  not  be  confounded  with  an  impure 
sect  bearing  the  same  name,  founded  by  another  and  little 
known  Origen.  This  sect  condemned  marriage,  and  allowed 
the  grossest  immoralities.  Sts.  Epiphanius  and  Augustine 
agree  that  the  great  Origen  cannot  be  blamed  for  these  teach- 
ings, as  his  works  are  remarkable  for  the  praise  of  chastity. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 

Gregory  was  born  at  Rome  about  the  year  540,  of  a patri- 
cian  family  noted  for  its  sterling  worth  and  eminent  piety. 
Possessed  of  great  wealth,  he  used  it  entirely  for  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  good  of  humanity.  In  Sicily  he  constructed 
and  endowed  six  monasteries,  and  in  Rome  he  built  the  cel- 
ebrated one  of  St.  Andrew  (on  the  Cmlian  hill),  which  now 
belongs  to  the  Camaldulese  congregation  of  the  Benedictine 
order.  To  this  last  establishment,  having  resigned  the  pre- 
fectship  of  the  city  in  573,  Gregory  retired  for  that  study 
and  religious  contemplation  so  admirably  promoted  by  the 
monastic  life.  Baronio  contends  that  the  future  Pontiff  en- 
tered the  institute  of  St.  Equitius,  but  the  arguments  of 
Dom.  Mabillon  (3),  proving  that  the  Benedictines  rightly 
claim  him  as  a companion,  seem  conclusive.  Gregory  was 
not  long  permitted  to  remain  in  the  seclusion  he  dearly 
loved  ; Pope  Pelagius  II.  drew  him  from  his  cell  in  the  year 
582,  made  him  a deacon  of  Roman  Church,  and  sent  him 

(1)  Third  Century , diss.  16.  (2)  In  his  edition  of  the  Breviary  of  Llberatus. 

(8)  Preface  to  Ut  Benedictine  Century,  and  ^he  special  dissertation  on  the  Monastic 
lAfcof  St.  Greyory  the  Great- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 


381 


as  legate  to  Constantinople.  During  the  five  years  of  hia 
embassy,  he  won  the  love  and  respect  of  the  emperors  Ti- 
berius II.  and  Mauritius,  while  scrupulously  discharging  his 
duty  as  Papal  representative  (1).  Recalled  to  Rome  in  585, 
he  begged  permission  to  retire  to  his  monastery,  and  it  was 
accorded.  But  the  plague  of  590  having  removed  Pope  Pe- 
lagius,  the  eyes  of  all  fell  upon  the  learned  and  holy  monk 
as  his  successor.  Elected  to  the  Pontificate  by  the  unani- 
mous voice  of  the  clergy,  amid  the  joyful  acclamations  of 
the  Senate  and  the  people,  he  not  only  endeavored,  by  every 
means  in  his  power,  to  induce  the  emperor  Mauritius  not  to 
confirm  the  election  (2),  but  betook  himself  to  a hiding- 
place,  that  he  might  escape  the  honor.  But  the  emperor 
immediately  issued  the  confirmation,  and  his  retreat  having 
been  discovered,  the  reluctant  Gregory  was  consecrated  on 
the  3rd  of  September. 

We  can  only  give  a glance  at  this  wonderful  Pontificate, 

- during  which,  for  fourteen  years,  Gregory  labored  as  few. 
even  of  the  Popes,  have  labored.  One  of  his  first  endeavors 
was  to  recall  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  the  defenders  of  the 
Three  Chapters  (3) ; he  called  them  to  a Synod,  that  their 
doubts  might  be  solved,  but  they  begged  for  delay,  and 
Mauritius  asked  him  not  to  molest  them,  on  account  of  the 
terrible  state  to  which  northern  Italy  was  reduced  by  the 
incursions  of  the  Lombards.  The  Pontiff  accorded  the  de- 
lay, but  he  exerted  his  influence  successfully  in  preventing 
Theodelinda,  the  Lombard  queen,  from  joining  the  schis- 
matics. He  then  turned  his  attention  to  Africa,  where  the 
Donatists  were  again  causing  trouble.  By  energetic  letters 
to  the  bishops  of  Numidia,  he  excited  their  zeal  for  the  true 
faith.  In  epistles  to  the  bishops  of  Arles  and  Marseilles, 
he  prohibited  the  enforced  baptism  of  Jews.  A controversy 
having  arisen  in  Spain  as  to  the  triple  immersion,  he  ap- 
proved both  methods.  He  ordered  that,  in  the  island  of  i 
Sardinia,  where  bishops  were  few,  priests  should  confirm,  in 

(1)  He  converted  the  patriarch  Eutychlus,  who  had  grievously  erred  In  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body. 

(2  This  confirmation  of  a Pontifical  election,  in  consideration  of  a certain  sum  of  money, 
was  the  result  of  a usurpation  by  the  Gothic  kinsrs,  and  had  been  retained  bar  the  emperor 
Justinian.  It  was  finally  abolished  by  Constantine  Pogonatus  (668-685;. 

(8)  The  bishops  of  Istria,  headed  by  Severus  of  Aquilela. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


382 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


cases  of  necessity.  He  decreed  that  the  married  subdeac^ 
ons  of  Sicily  should  not  be  advanced  in  orders.  He  turned 
bis  energies  to  the  conversion  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  but  of 
that  we  shall  treat  in  a special  chapter. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  Gregory’s  epistles  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  growing  ambition  of  the  see  of  Constantinople. 
The  patriarch  John  “ the  Faster  ” having  assumed  the  style 
of  “ oecumenical,”  the  Pontiff  wrote  to  him  a stern,  but  pru- 
dent letter,  in  which  occur  the  following  passages  : “I  fear 
the  hidden  judgments  of  God,  when  I learn  that  the  most 
holy  John,  a man  of  such  abstinence  and  humility,  has, 
through  the  seduction  of  his  familiars,  developed  so  much 
pride,  that  he  tries  to  be  like  unto  him  who,  arrogantly 
wishing  to  be  like  unto  God,  lost  even  the  granted  similar- 
ity. Certainly,  the  Apostle  Peter  is  the  first  member  of  the 
holy  universal  Church;  what  are  Paul,  Andrew,  John,  but 
the  chiefs  of  particular  peoples?  Under  one  head,  all  are 
members  of  the  Church let  your  Holiness  ac- 

knowledge, how  much  he  musi  be  inflated,  who  desires  to  ba 
called  by  a name  which  nc  one,  who  was  truly  holy,  pre- 
sumed to  assume.  Were  not  the  bishops  of  this  Apostolic 
See,  as  your  Fraternity  f/iows,  styled  ‘Universal’  by  the 
venerable  Council  of  CLalcedon  ? And  yet  no  one  of  them 
chose  to  be  so  designated  , not  one  claimed  the  arrogant  ti- 
tle. ’ Indeed,  so  great  was  the  delicacy  of  St  Gregory  on 
this  subject  of  titles,  that  he  instituted  the  custom  of  the 
Pontiff’s  styling  Limself  “ Servant  of  the  servants  of 
God”  (1). 

St.  Gregory  wa*  especially  careful  in  the  appointment  of 
bishops.  Among  many  instances  which  could  be  cited  of 
this  prudence,  v/e  select  the  following  : John  the  Deacon 

had  been  chosen  for  the  see  of  Naples,  but  the  Pontiff  re- 
jected his  name,  because  he  had  an  infant  daughter,  thus 
proving  that  Lis  continence  was  not  of  long  duration.  When 
three  candidates  were  presented  for  the  see  of  Ancona,  he 
said  of  the  first,  “ He  is  indeed  learned  in  scripture,  but  h6 
is  broken  with  age  of  the  second,  “ He  is  very  watchful, 
but  we  hear  that  he  does  not  know  the  Psalms  ;”  and  of  the 

(1)  John  thk  D*aoo*  ; b.  4,  c.  58. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 


383 


tmrd,  “ 'We  know  him  to  be  energetic, but  what  he  is  interi- 
orly, wf»  know  not.” 

Hearing  that  simony  was  prevalent  in  Gaul  and  Germany, 
the  saint  wrote  to  queen  Brunichilda  (1),  “ Let  your  Christ- 
ianity diligently  watch,  lest  in  your  kingdom  any  one  be 
allowed  to  receive  Holy  Orders,  on  account  of  money  gifts, 
personal  patronage,  or  claim  of  kinship ; but  let  him  be 
chosen  for  the  episcopacy,  or  for  any  other  holy  office, 
whose  life  and  morals  proclaim  him  worthy  ; for  if  the  hon- 
or of  the  priesthood  is  sold,  that  simoniacal  heresy,  which 
was  the  first  to  arise  in  the  Church,  and  was  condemned  by 
Peter,  will  revive,  which  God  forbid,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
strength  of  your  kingdom.”  In  a Roman  Synod,  he  pro- 
hibited the  giving  of  money,  either  for  ordination,  or  for  the 
pallium.  And  writing  to  Theodobert,  king  of  the  Franks, 
he  says  that  one  of  the  effects  of  simony  is  that  “ the  good, 
if  poor,  are  despised  and  prohibited  to  receive  Orders.  And 
whilo  the  innocence  of  the  poor  man  is  displeasing,  the 
briln  doubtless  recommends  the  wicked  ; for  where  gold  is 
like*',  so  is  vice.” 

Si.  Gregory  manifested  great  interest  in  liturgical  mat- 
ters. He  added  to  the  Canon  of  the  Mass  the  words,  “And 
disp  se  our  days  in  Thy  peace,  and  deliver  us  from  eternal 
dami  ation,  and  order  us  to  be  numbered  in  the  flock  of  Thy 
elect  ” He  decreed  that  the  Lord’s  Prayer  should  be  re- 
cited a*ter  the  Canon;  that  the  Kyrie  should  be  sung;  that 
the  A lleluja  should  not  be  restricted  to  the  Paschal  time  ; 
that  I he  subdeacon  should  assist  at  Mass  in  alb  only.  He 
instituted  that  majestic  chant  which,  after  him,  we  term 
the  G egorian.  He  was  very  solicitous  about  the  Stations 
at  the  basilicas  and  the  catacombs,  and  it  was  while  per- 
formin  j this  devotion  that  he  delivered  his  twenty  Homilies 
on  the  Gospels.  So  great,  however,  was  his  humility,  that 
he  wouM  not  permit  his  writings  to  be  read  in  the  Vigils  and 
other  1 octurnal  Offices.  He  says  (2),  “ I was  not  pleased 
when  my  brother  and  fellow-bishop,  Marinian,  caused  the 
Cuinrie  its  on  Job  to  be  publicly  read  in  the  Vigils,  because 
that  work  is  not  for  the  people,  and  might  do  more  harm 

<1)  Epiat.  5,  b.  7.  <2)  Book  X.,  epiat.  28. 


Digitized  by  U.ooQLe 


384 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


than  good  to  the  uninstructed.  But  tell  him  to  have  read 
at  the  Vigils  the  Comments  on  the  Psalms , which  will  teach 
morality  to  the  secular  mind.  Nor  do  I wish  that  what  I 
have  happened  to  write,  should  be  known  to*men  while  I 
am  in  the  flesh.  For  I was  much  displeased  when  the 
deacon  Anatolius,  of  blessed  memory,  obeyed  the  command 
of  our  lord  the  emperor,  and  gave  him  the  book  of  Pastoral 
Buie,  which  my  holy  brother  and  fellow-bishop,  Anastasius 
of  Antioch,  translated  into  the  Greek  language,  and  which,  as 
was  written  to  me,  pleased  him  greatly.  But  it  displeased  me 
much,  that  they  who  have  better  books,  should  occupy  them- 
selves with  unimportant  ones.**  So  far  as  he  could  prevent 
it,  he  would  not  allow  his  works  to  be  read  at  the  meals  of 
his  fellow-bishops.  He  writes  to  the  bishop  of  Syracuse 
(1),  “ I hear  that  your  Fraternity  causes  to  be  read  at  the 
table  certain  of  my  writings,  and  before  strangers  ; this,  it 
appears  to  me,  ought  not  to  be  done,  for  some  might  impute 
to  my  vain  glory,  that  which  you  do  out  of  good  feeling. 
Therefore,  before  visitors,  let  the  sayings  of  the  ancients  be 
read,  that  the  hearers  may  derive  information  from  their 
authority.” 

In  his  intercourse  with  the  emperor,  Gregory  always 
showed  the  respect  due  the  civil  authority,  but  he  never,  for 
a moment,  forgot  his  own  Apostolic  duties.  Events  were 
already  gradually  precipitating  a crisis  which  was  soon  to 
result  in  the  introduction  of  the  Pontiffs  among  the  tem- 
poral sovereigns  of  the  world,  and  the  cares  of  civil  adminis- 
tration were  frequently  forced  upon  Gregory.  But  as  yet 
the  Byzantine  emperors  were  not  so  cruelly  neglectful  of 
the  welfare,  and  even  life,  of  their  Roman  subjects,  as  to 
force  these  to  disclaim  allegiance.  The  spirit  of  discontent, 
however,  was  developing  itself,  and  hence  our  Pontiff  was 
careful  to  show  an  example  of  respect  to  the  imperial 
authority.  When  Mauritius  promulgated  a law,  prohibit- 
ing admission  to  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  or  to  the  monastic 
life,  of  any  persons  owing  service  to  the  government ; also 
ordering  the  monasteries  to  receive  no  soldiers  or  officers, 
Gregory  approved  of  the  first  clause,  but  thought  it  should 

(1)  Book  VI.,  cpiat . 9. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 


386 


be  so  modified  as  to  allow  monasteries  to  receive  those 
whose  obligations  they  were  willing  to  assume  to  them- 
selves. As  for  the  second  clause,  the  Pontiff  condemned 
it,  and  begged  the  emperor  to  abrogate  it.  “ This  Consti- 
tution,”, he  says  to  Mauritius  (1),  “ I tell  my  lord,  has  great- 
ly astounded  me,  because  by  it  the  way  to  Heaven  is  closed 
to  many,  and  what  was  till  now  permitted,  is  now  prohibit- 
ed. There  are  many  who  can  lead  a religious  life,  even 
when  clad  in  the  secular  habit ; but  there  are  many  who 
cannot  be  saved  before  God,  unless  they  leave  all  things. 
Saying  these  things  to  my  lord,  what  am  I but  dust  and 
a worm  ? Yet,  since  I know  that  this  Constitution  is  averse 
to  God,  the  Author  of  all,  I cannot  remain  silent  before  my 
lord.  For  power  has  been  given  by  Heaven  to  the  piety  of 
my  lord,  over  all  men,  in  order  that  they  may  be  aided  who 
seek  good  things,  in  order  that  the  way  of  Heaven  may  be 
made  wider,  in  order  that  the  earthly  may  be  joined  to 
the  Heavenly  kingdom.  And  behold,  it  is  openly  declared, 
that  if  a man  has  been  once  enrolled  among  the  earthly 
soldiery,  he  cannot  combat  for  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  un- 
less his  term  has  expired,  or  he  is  discharged  for  bodily 
infirmity.  For  these  things,  Christ  will  answer,  through 
me,  His  and  your  most  humble  servant,  saying:  ‘From  a 
notary,  I made  you  commander  of  the  guards  ; from  a com- 
mander’s position,  I raised  you  to  that  of  Caesar  ; from  the 
station  of  Caesar,  I made  you  emperor  ; more  than  this,  you 
are  the  father  of  emperors.  I committed  my  priests  into 
your  hands,  and  you  withdraw  your  soldiers  from  my  ser- 
vice?   Hence,  by  that  same  terrible  Judge,  I pray 

that  all  the  tears,  the  prayers,  alms,  and  fastings  of  my  lord 
may  jiot  become  obscured  before  the  eyes  of  God  omnipo- 
tent ; but  that  your  Piety,  either  by  change  or  by  modifica- 
tion, may  temper  the  rigor  of  this  law,  for  the  army  of  my 
lord  grows  in  strength  against  the  enemy,  in  proportion  as 
the  army  of  God  grows  in  prayer.”  Having  satisfied  his 
conscience  by  this  protest,  Gregory  promulgated  the  imper- 
ial mandate  ; but,  in  his  letters  to  the  metropolitans,  he 
undertook  to  modify  the  obnoxious  clause — nor  was  Mauri- 

(V)  n<n)U  2,  cplst.  62. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


386 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tius  offended  thereby — by  ordering  that  soldiers  should  not 
readily  be  admitted  as  monks,  and  only  after  a three  years* 
probation  in  the  secular  habit. 

The  Roman  Pontiff,  as  we  have  said,  was  not  yet,  in  the 
time  of  St.  Gregory,  a temporal  sovereign,  but  we  find  him 
setting  an  example  to  all  bishops,  as  to  the  protection  they 
should,  if  possible,  afford  their  flocks,  when  the  ordinary 
civil  authorities  are  too  negligent  or  too  impotent  to  extend 
it.  Thus,  he  sent  Leontius  to  the  Nepesines  as  governor, 
giving  him  these  credentials  (1):  “We  have  given  to  Leon- 
tius the  care  and  responsibility  of  the  city,  that,  watching 
over  all  which  turns  to  your  utility,  and  that  ot  the  State, 
he  may  arrange,  &c.  Whoever  resists  his  orders,  will  be 
known  as  contradicting  our  dispositions.”  He  sent  as  gov- 
ernor to  Naples,  the  tribune  Constantius,  with  orders  to  pro- 
tect it.  Writing  to  the  Neapolitan  soldiery,  the  Pope  says 
(2) : “Among  other  merits  of  an  army,  it  deserves  the  great- 
est praise  when  it  shows  obedience  to  the  necessities  of  the 
State,  as  we  learn  your  devotion  has  done,  showing  a fitting 
example  of  military  obedience  by  respecting  our  epistles, 
whereby  we  deputed  the  honorable  tribune  Constantius  as 
governor  of  the  city.”  He  wrote  to  the  bishop  of  Terracina 
that  not  even  the  clergy  should  be  exempted  from  sentry 
duty  (3)  : “ Since  we  have  heard  that  many  excuse  them- 

selves from  the  watch  on  the  walls,  let  your  Fraternity  be 
careful  that  no  one  be  exempted  from  this  duty,  either  in  our 
name  or  that  of  the  Church.”  St.  Gregory  having  suggested 
to  Mauritius  the  propriety  of  making  peace  with  the  Lom- 
bards, he  was  regarded  as  a simpleton,  and  received  rather 
insolent  letters  from  the  emperor.  In  his  reply,  we  note 
the  following  passages  (4):  “Since  I am  denounced  as  a 

simpleton, as  having  been  deceived  by  the  cunning  of  Arnulph, 
I am  doubtless  regarded  as  a fool ; and  that  I am  such,  I my- 
self avow.  For  had  I not  been  a fool,  I would  not  have  come 
to  bear  the  things  which  I suffer  in  this  place,  from  the 
swords  of  the  Lombards.  As  for  my  saying  that  Arnulph 
was  heartily  willing  to  come  to  terms  with  the  State,  I am 

(1)  Book  VIII.,  cpist.  2.  (3)  Book  VII.,  eptot.  20. 

(2)  Book  XIL,  eptit.  24.  (4)  Rbo/c  4,  epi&t.  31. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 


387 


upbraided  as  a liar.  But  although  I am  not  a (good)  priest, 
I know  it  is  a grave  injury  to  a priest,  if,  when  serving  the 

truth,  he  is  thought  to  be  a deceiver And  truly,  if 

the  captivity  of  my  country  were  not  momentarily  becoming 
more  intolerable,  I would  gladly  be  silent  as  to  the  contempt 
shown  to  me.  But  this  greatly  afflicts  me,  that  what  causee 
me  to  be  charged  with  falsehood,  also  causes  Italy  to  lie 
captive  under  the  yoke  of  the  Lombards.  And  while  my 
suggestions  are  ignored,  the  forces  of  the  enemy  immensely 

increase What  wonder  is  it  if  your  Piety  deigns  te 

honor  those  whom  God  Himself  calls  gods  and  angels  ?.  . . . 
what  wonder  if  a Christian  emperor  deigns  to  honor  the 
priests  of  the  true  God,  when  Pagan  princes  knew  how  to 
honor  those  priests  who  served  gods  of  wood  and  stone  ? 
I suggest  these  things  to  the  piety  of  my  lord,  not  on  my 
own  account,  but  because  of  the  entire  priesthood  ; as  for 
myself,  I am  a sinful  man.’’  At  one  time,  St  Gregory  had 
made  peace  with  the  Lombards,  but  owing  to  the  impru- 
dence of  Mauritius,  war  again  ensued,  and  king  Agilulph 
invaded  the  Duchy  of  Rome,  took  a large  number  of  captives, 
and  laid  siege  to  the  city.  While  the  siege  lasted,  the  im- 
perial prefect  and  the  general  commanding  were  not  more 
active  in  the  defence  than  the  Pontiff,  but  Mauritius,  instead 
of  thanking  him,  upbraided  him  because  there  had  not  been 
more  corn  in  the  city.  The  saint,  nevertheless,  had  used 
the  treasures  of  the  Church  to  pay  the  soldiery,  and  to 
ransom  the  captive  Romans  (1).  In  an  epistle  to  the  em- 
peror already  quoted  (2),  the  Pontiff  says,  “I  had  already 
received  several  wounds,  when  the  arrival  of  my  lord’s  or- 
ders brought  me  unhoped-for  consolations.  If  I can,  I shall 
enumerate  these  wounds.  The  first  was  when  the  peace, 
which,  without  any  detriment  to  the  state,  I had  made  with 
the  Lombards  of  Tuscany,  was  broken;  again,  when  the 
garrison  was  withdrawn  from  Rome.  Many  of  them  had 
indeed  been  killed  by  the  enemy,  the  rest  were  stationed  in 
Narni  and  Perugia;  that  Perugia  might  be  held,  Rome  was 
abandoned.  After  this,  a more  severe  wound  was  caused  by 
the  coming  of  Agilulph,  when,  with  my  own  eyes,  I saw  the 

(1)  Book  4,  epist.  34.  (2)  IM,  episL  81. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


388 


STUDIES  IN  CHUUCH  HISTOftY. 


Romans  with  ropes  around  their  necks,  like  dogs,  led  off 
to  be  sold  in  Gaul.  And  as  for  us  who,  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  remained  safe  from  the  enemy,  we  have  been  called 
culpable  because  the  corn  gave  out,  when  we  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  collected  more.  I have  not  been  disturbed  here- 
by for  myself,  because  I speak  from  my  conscience  when  I 
declare  myself  ready  for  anything,  provided  only  I issue 
forth  from  these  troubles  with  the  salvation  of  my  soul. 
But  I have  been  greatly  afflicted  on  account  of  the  glorious 
heroes,  the  prefect  Gregory,  and  the  general,  Castor,  who, 
to  the  utmost  of  their  ability,  neglected  nothing,  but  suffered 
greatly  in  the  defence  of  the  city  ; and  yet  they  have  fall- 
en under  the  displeasure  of  my  lord.  But  I plainly  under- 
stand that  it  is  not  their  conduct,  but  my  person,  that  causes 
their  trouble.”  At  length,  St.  Gregory  saw  peace  concluded 
with  Agilulph,  and  on  that  score,  his  last  days  were  happy. 

That  our  Pontiff  was  a most  learned,  as  well  as  a most 
holy  man,  his  works,  and  the  estimation  in  which  tney  have 
ever  been  held,  abundantly  prove.  He  was  unacquainted 
with  Greek,  according  to  his  own  acknowledgment  (1)  ; but 
this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  much  of  a drawback.  Our 
limits  will  permit  of  only  a cursory  glance  at  his  works. 
His  book  of  Morals , deduced  from  Job,  was  written  at  the 
instance  of  St.  Leander  of  Spain,  while  our  saint  was  Papal 
legate  at  Constantinople  ; it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the 
wants  of  the  preacher,  and  to  him  who  seeks  guidance  in  the 
-care  of  souls.  The  Pastoral,  Book  was  occasioned  by  a re- 
proof given  the  saint  by  John,  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  for 
having  refused  a bishopric.  It  fully  treats  of  the  duties  of 
bishops,  and  was  so  highly  appreciated  during  the  middle 
ages,  that  we  find  many  Synods  enjoining  its  study  and  ob- 
servance upon  bishops.  Thus,  the  Council  of  Tours,  in 
813,  declares  that  every  bishop  should  look  at  himself  in  it, 
as  in  a mirror.  The  Homilies  on  Ezechiel  were  delivered  to 
the  people,  and  taken  down  by  notaries  ; the  forty  Homilies 
on  the  Gospels  were  some  delivered  by  himself,  and  others 
dictated  to  notaries  who  read  them  to  the  people.  Certain 
authors,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  have  denied  that  St 

(1)  “ We  have  written  no  work  in  Greek,  nor  do  we  know  Greek.’’  Booh  6,  epist.  29. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PONTIFICATE  OF  8T.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 


389 


Gregory  is  the  author  of  the  Dialogues  ascribed  to  him,  but 
the  weight  of  evidence  is  for  the  affirmative  side  of  the 
question  (1).  The  Antiphonary  is  a new  arrangement  of  the 
ancient  Antiphons  of  the  Church,  with  the  addition  of 
many  new  ones.  The  Sacramentary  is  based  on  the  codex 
of  Pope  Gelasius.  and  has  been  greatly  modified  by  succeed- 
ing Pontiffs.  There  are  Commentaries  on  the  Book  of  Kings , 
on  the  Penitential  Psalms , and  on  the  Canticle  of  Canticles , 
attributed  to  St.  Gregory,  which  seem  to  be  unautlientic  (2). 

Modern  incredulists,  and  other  adversaries  of  the  Holy 
See,  have  accused  St.  Gregory  of  virulent  hostility  to  pro- 
fane science,  alleging  that  he  forbade  the  study  of  letters 
to  ecclesiastics  ; that  his  fanaticism  caused  him  to  procure 
the  destruction  of  many  monuments  of  Pagan  Rome  ; that 
he  burned  the  valuable  library  of  the  Palatine  ; that  he  was, 
in  fine,  the  Attila  of  literature.  As  for  the  Pontiffs  senti- 
ments in  regard  to  letters,  John  the  Deacon  (3)  tells  us  that, 
under  Gregory’s  rule,  wisdom  built  for  herself  at  Rome  a 
visible  temple,  and  that  the  halls  of  the  Papal  palace  were 
resplendent  with  the  glories  of  the  seven  arts  ; that  notone 
-of  the  court,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  ever  betrayed 
the  least  barbarism  in  language  or  in  dress  ; that  study  of 
the  fine  arts  was  the  order  of  the  day.  The  works  of  St. 
Gregory  show  that  he  was  a learned  man,  and  if,  as  is  al- 
leged, he  sometimes  appears  to  contemn  the  adventitious 
beauties  of  rhetoric  (4),  it  is  only  because,  as  he  himself 
tells  us,  he  was  more  concerned  for  purity  of  doctrine  and  for 
•exactness  in  dogmatic  expression.  He  certainly  did  reprove 
a bishop  for  teaching  rhetoric  (5),  but  merely  because  he 
deemed  the  office  of  pedagogue  beneath  the  episcopal  dig- 
nity. And  is  it  likely  that  a fanatical  devotee  of  ignorance 
would  have  occupied  the  position  of  prefect  of  Rome,  or 
that  he  would  have  been  made  legate  to  the  cultivated  court 
of  Constantinople  ? Brucker  (6)  asserts  that  our  Pontiff 

(1)  8ee  Alexandre  ; Cent.  6,  chap.  4,  art.  16.  (2)  Ibi. 

48>  Life  of  St.  Gregory , b.  2,  e.  12.  (4)  Epistle  to  Leander , prefixed  to  the  Morals. 

(5)  Epist.  54,  to  Desidcrius  of  Vienne. 

(6)  Critical  History  of  Philosophy , v.  8,  p.  2,  b.  2.  “ Among  the  many  merits  ol  this 
writer,  to  whom  we  owe  the  fullest,  most  complete,  and  most  profound,  history  of  philos- 
ophy yet  seen,  is  that  of  wise  moderation ; he  does  not,  like  many  Protestants,  exercise  a 
rabid  fury  towards  everything  Catholic.  But  on  this  occasion,  he  seems  to  have  forgotten 
Ills  wise  impartiality In  the  appendix  he  asserts  that  this  otherwise  good  bishop 


Digitized  by  Vjooole 


390 


STUDIES  IS  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


expelled  mathematicians  from  his  palace,  and  that  he  burned 
the  Palatine  library.  Bayle  and  Barbeyrac,  hostile  though 
they  are  to  the  Fathers,  admit  that  the  last  accusation  ia 
baseless.  It  is  founded  solely  upon  the  authority  of  John 
of  Salisbury  (d.  1180),  who,  in  his  Pdycraticon , b.  2,  c.  2G, 
says  that,  “ The  most  holy  doctor,  Gregory,  who  nourished 
and  inebriated  the  whole  Church  with  the  honeyed  rain  of 
his  preaching,  not  only  ordered  mathematicians  to  retire 
from  his  court,  but,  as  is  handed  down  from  our  forefathers,, 
gave  to  the  flames  all  the  writings  contained  in  the  (library 
of)  Palatine  Apollo,  among  which  the  principal  were 
thought  to  reveal  to  men  the  celestial  mind^and  the  oracles 
of  Heaven.”  But  how  is  it  that  for  more  than  five  hundred 
years  we  find  no  mention  of  this  accusation?  Brucker 
answers  that  it  was  a tradition,  “handed  down  from  our 
forefathers,”  in  the  words  of  John  of  Salisbury,  and  that 
Catholics,  who  rely  so  much  upon  tradition,  ought  there- 
fore to  accept  it.  But  Catholics,  well  replies  Bergier  (1), 
do  not  receive  as  tradition  every  hearsay,  and  Protestants, 
who  reject  even  written  traditions,  ought  not  to  accept  ono 
which  is  unwritten.  Let  us  omit,  however,  for  the  moment^ 
any  question  as  to  the  authority  of  John  of  Salisbury. 
What  does  he  assert  ? Firstly,  that  St.  Gregory  expelled 
mathematicians  from  his  court.  But  who  were  these  “ mathe- 
maticians ?”  In  the  middle  ages  this  term  was  princi- 
pally applied  to  judicial  astrologists,  that  is,  to  those  who 
pretended  to  predict  the  future  by  a planetary  investigation. 
Brucker  and  his  imitators  may  have  been  grossly  ignorant 
as  to  the  literature  of  that  time,  but  certainly  they  should 
have  noticed  that  Salisbury  himself  informs  us  that  he 
makes  no  reference  to  “mathematicians”  in  our  sense  of 
the  word.  He  is  attacking  the  false  science  of  astrology, 
and  alleges  the  authority  of  “ the  most  holy  doctor,  Greg- 
ory," who,  he  says,  nut  only  banished  the  impostors  from 

was  not  nat  urally  acute,  that  he  possessed  no  force  of  genius,  and  could  not  reason  well. 
But  while  he  was  thus  writing,  there  fell  into  his  hands  two  books  written  iu  defence  of  St. 
Gregory,  one  by  a Benedictine  monk  of  Frisengen,  and  the  other  by  the  anonymous  French 
author  of  the  History  of  Hclcctinsm.  Hence  he  resolved  to  again  enter  the  field,  and  In  A 
long,  and.  If  I may  so  speak,  very  tedious  digression  of  full  forty  pages,  he  undertook  to 
refute  the  arguments  <>f  these  writers,  and  to  develop  or  confirm  his  previous  assertions  of 
our  Pontiff's  superstition,  iguorauce,  and  want  of  discernment/1  TiaaBOSCHi ; Italian 
Literature,  b.  2,  c 2. 

(1)  Dictionary,  art.  Gregory. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT.  £91 

his  presence,  but  even  destroyed  those  writings  “which  were 
thought  to  reveal  to  men  the  celestial  mind,  and  the  oracles 
of  Heaven.  ” 

As  for  the  burning  of  the  grand  Library  constructed  by 
Augustus  in  the  Palatine  temple  of  Apollo  (1),  could  such 
an  event,  so  interesting  to  every  votary  of  learning,  have 
taken  place,  we  will  not  say,  without  the  lamentations  of 
many,  but  without  even  a word  of  comment?  And  never- 
theless, five  centuries  and  a half  elapse,  during  which  a con- 
stant succession  of  chroniclers  are  busily  recording  even  the 
trivialties  of  their  time,  and  not  a suspicion  of  such  au  event 
is  hinted.  The  authority  of  John  of  Salisbury  is  not  so  in- 
contestable as  to  justify  us  in  yielding  to  his  uncorroborated 
assertion,  and  in  the  face  of  this  eloquent  silence.  Brucker 
praises  his  virtues,  and  tells  us  they  procured  his  elevation 
ko  the  see  of  Chartres.  But  virtue  does  not  necessarily 
imply  the  power  of  critical  discernment,  and  when  Salisbury 
narrates  things  displeasing  to  Protestant  ears,  we  hear 
nothing  either  of  his  virtue  or  of  his  acumen.  The  fact  is, 
however,  John  of  Salisbury  was  a bad  critic  ; everything  was 
grist  to  his  mill.  In  the  course  of  his  works,  many  popular 
traditions  are  met,  some  of  them  simply  ridiculous,  and  yet 
he  approves  them  all.  Coming  from  the  pen  of  a Catholic 
bishop,  what  can  be  more  absurd  than  his  approval  (2)  of 
Ihe  story  of  Trajan’s  pardon  from  hell,  thanks  to  the  impor- 
tunate prayers  of  Pope  Gregory,  “ but  only  on  condition  that 
Gregory  should  never  again  intercede  with  God  for  an  in- 
fidel”? But  perhaps  the  strongest  refutation  of  this  calumny 
can  be  found  in  the  evident  futility  of  the  act  with  the  com- 
mission of  which  our  Pontiff  is  charged.  If  St.  Gregory 
burned  the  Palatine  Library,  he  did  so  through  false  zeal 
for  sacred  letters.  Now  that  zeal  could  not  be  satisfied  by 
the  destruction  of  one  single  library,  and  he  would  have  in 
vain  brought  opprobrium  upon  himself.  In  Rome  there 
were  many  other  such  collections,  and  in  the  monasteries  of 
Italy,  Gaul,  Ireland,  and  Spain,  the  patient  scribes  were 
constantly  .multiplying  copies  of  the  dangerous  classics. 

(1)  Some  authors  have  thought  that  Salisbury  Intended  to  refer  merely  to  the  destruction  of 
the  astrological  hooka,  but  the  tenor  of  the  passage  seems  to  Imply  a burning  of  the  entire 
collection. 

(2)  PolycraticoiXy  b.  5,  c.  8. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


392 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


The  Roman  Pontiff  who  would  be  so  foolish  and  reckless  as. 
to  burn  the  Palatine  Library,  would  certainly  have  ordered 
the  destruction  of  the  classics  in  every  monastery  of  the 
world  (1). 

St.  Gregory  is  also  charged  with  the  destruction  of  many 
monuments  of  ancient  Roman  magnificence.  But  upon  what 
testimony  is  this  accusation  put  forth?  Upon  that  of 
Amalricus,  who  lived  in  the  14th  century,  and  whom  the 
erudite  and  critical  Muratori  regards  as  a swallower  of  fables ; 
upon  that  of  Leo  Urbevetanus,  also  of  the  14th  century,  and 
whom  Lamy  accuses  of  credulity ; upon  that  of  Raphael  of 
Yolaterra.  of  the  16th  century,  whom  Tiraboschi  condemns 
as  of  little  reliability  (2).  Where  did  these  writers,  of  a 
period  eight  and  nine  centuries  posterior  to  the  age  of  Greg- 

(1)  Some  writers  of  the  15th  century  asserted  that  St.  Gregory  endeavored  to  prevent  the- 
study  of  Tally  and  Livy.  This  seems  unlikely,  for  these  authors  are  probably  the  least 
offensive  of  any  on  the  classic  shelves.  A condemnation  of  Horace,  Catullus,  and  Tibullus, 
would  have  l»een  much  more  consonant  with  the  Pontiff's  supposed  severity.  Tiraboschi 
(In c.  vit.)  speuks  as  follows  of  the  authority  of  John  of  Salisbury  : **  Who  Is  this  writer  ? In 
the  first  place  he  lived  six  centuries  after  St.  Gregory.  Now  some  of  the  critics  of  our  day 
conduct  themselves,  to  tell  the  truth,  in  a very  frivolous  manner.  They  want  every  fact  to 
be  proved  by  the  authority  of  writers  contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  the  events  in  question, 
and  if  they  come  across  a narration  by  a modem  author,  unaccompanied  by  such  authori- 
tative proof,  they  either  reject  the  fact  narrated,  or  place  it  on  the  list  of  doubtful  events.  I 
myHelf  believe  in  so  doing,  but  these  gentry  are  not  consistent.  When  they  meet  a story 
which,  for  some  reason,  they  wish  to  credit,  then  any  testimony,  no  matter  of  how  distant 
an  authority,  is  sufficient.  Were  John  of  Salisbury  to  narrate  something  creditable  to  St. 
Gregory,  then  we  would  hear  that  he  is  unreliable,  but  if  he  tells  us  something  that  would 
indicate  the  saint  as  a fanatic  and  an  ignorant  man,  then  he  is  a truth-telling  and  critical 

historian No  other  writer,  during  the  space  of  nearly  six  centuries,  says  anythlug 

about  St.  Gregory's  having  burnt  a library ; at  length  an  English  author  speaks  of  it.  but  givea 
no  proof.  Why  should  we  easily  believe  him  V And  here  precisely  has  Brucker  been  await- 
ing us.  No,  says  he,  Salibury  does  not  allege  this  fact  without  good  proof  (Appendix,  p. 
05b) ; ho  says  that  * It  is  handed  down  to  us  a majaritnu* ; ’ therefore  It  was  a perpetual  tra- 
dition. doubted  by  no  one ; it  was  probably  recorded  in  many  books  not  now  extant ; a wise 
and  learned  man,  such  as  Salisbury  was,  would  not  have  asserted  it  without  reason.  Thus 
proceeds  Brucker  in  his  lengthy  demonstration.  But  let  me  ask  Brucker  If  he  believes  It 
true  that  St.  Gregory  freed  the  soul  of  Trajan  from  hell.  He  must  laugh  at  my  question.  But 
suppose  that  I declare  that  this  act  of  the  saint  is  narrated  by  a writer  of  the  IsJth  century.  He- 
will  answer  that  it  was  precisely  in  those  times  of  ignorance  that  such  fables  originated: 
that  a writer,  who  seriously  records  such  things,  is  a weak-minded,  superstitious,  ignorant 
man.  Very  well.  This  John  of  Salisbury,  that  man,  as  Brucker  says  ( !/>/),  who  was  learn- 
ed beyo  id  his  lime;  that  most  celebrated  author  who  was  greatly  esteemed  by  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris  < ihi,  p.  660) ; in  whose  writings  them  is  not  wanting  critical  acumen,  and 
whom  learned  men  set  above  all  Ids  eon  temporaries!  p.  004; ; who,  well  instructed  in  dialectics 
was  not  ho  uncultured,  as,  like  Gregory,  to  prefer  to  bo  accused  of  Ignorance  rather  than  ac- 
quire the  art  of  reasoning  properly  ; who  under  the  tuition  of  the  great  professor  of  logic. 
William  of  Soissons.  learned  the  elements  of  that  science,  and  hence  entered  upon  the  right 
rood  of  true  erudition  (p.  005)  ; this  very  man.  to  whom  Brucker  gives  all  these  praises, 
when  he  wishes  us  to  credit  the  story  of  the  Palatine  library,  narrates  such  a fact  with  the 
most  admirable  seriousness Does  Brucker  believe  this  tale?  Let  him  then  acknowl- 

edge that  his  John  of  Salisbury  is  not  so  critical  as  he  would  have  us  believe ; that  he  nar- 
rates as  certain  thing;  that  common  sense  shows  to  have  l»een  Impossible  (and  if  time  and 
space  permitted.  I could  give  many  instances,  for  1 have  read  the  whole  of  Salisbury’s  book, 
in  order  to  form  an  Imoartial  judgment);  that  his  ‘ It  is  said,'  ‘ we  read  ’ * it  is  rumored,* 

indicate  merely  popular  traditions  that are  without  foundation Finally,  in  the  two 

passages  in  which  hesi*eaks  of  this  conflagration.  John  of  Salisbury  contradicts  himself.  In 
one  place  he  says  that  the  library  given  to  the  flames  was  that  of  the  Capitol,  in  another, 
that  It  was  that  of  the  temple  of  the  Palatine  Ajxillo.  It  is  certain  that  these  were  two- 
different  libraries,  and  they  were  very  distant  from  each  other.” 

As  critics.  Muratori  and  Tlml>oschi  occuny  a position  second  to  none  and  immeasura- 
h!v  mon  Hunont  than  that  attained  by  the  rank  and  tile  of  the  profession.  Lamy’s  opinions, 
uv  *<  c : -d  l*>  x-iioiars. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PONTIFICATE  OF  ST.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT.  39& 

ory,  derive  their  information  ? In  all  the  works  composed 
during  this  interval,  there  is  profound  silence  as  to  the  im- 
puted vandalism  of  our  Pontiff ; it  is  ignored  by  Gregory  of 
Tours,  Isidore  of  Spain,  Yen.  Bede,  Liutprand,  the  deacons 
Paul  and  John,  Anastasius  the  Librarian,  all  of  whom  are 
prolific  with  details  of  his  reign.  We  are  asked  to  believe 
that  a Roman  patrician,  a member  of  a senatorial  family, 
and  a man  of  liberal  education,  one  who  had  occupied 
the  exalted  pretorial  chair  over  a people  distinguished  for 
their  pvide  in  their  city,  helped  to  consummate  the  work  of 
devastation  which  the  Northern  barbarians  had  left  incom- 
plete. We  are  asked  to  ignore  his  lamentations,  his  overpower- 
ing grief  (1),  caused  by  the  destruction  of  so  many  beautiful 
edifices,  and  to  regard  him  as  a prince  of  vandals.  And  how  is 
his  insanity  explained?  We  are  told  that  the  fanatical  Pon- 
tiff wished  to  remove  from  the  Roman  people  any  danger  of 
relapse  into  idolatry.  But  in  the  time  of  St.  Gregory  the 
Great,  the  Romans  were  as  far  removed  from  any  weakness 
of  faith  as  they  are  to-day;  perhaps,  indeed,  further  removed 
than  they  are  at  present.  While  admiring  the  magnificent 
productions  of  ancestral  genius,  they  were  as  free  from  any 
yearnings  towards  idolatry  as  any  of  their  martyred  fore- 
fathers. And  would  the  Roman  people  have  allowed  this 
destruction  of  their  city’s  glorious  monuments  ? Procopius 
(2)  (d.  565)  says,  “ The  Romans  are  more  careful  of  their  city 
than  any  people  we  know ; everything  belonging  to  their 
country  they  strive  to  preserve,  and  although  they  have  suf- 
fered under  the  rule  of  barbarism,  they  have  preserved  the 
edifices  of  the  city,  and  as  many  of  its  ornaments  as  .they 
were  able.”  Gregory  was  Supreme  Pontiff,  and  had,  as  we 
have  seen,  almost  royal  power  in  the  Roman  Duchy,  but  the 
emperor  was  yet  the  acknowledged  master.  Would  he  have 
permitted  this  gross  infraction  of  the  Theodosian  and  Jus- 
tinianic  laws,  which  so  strictly  provided  for  the  care  of  the 
ancient  monuments  ? No  emperor  would  have  suffered  such 
vandalism  to  be  perpetrated,  still  less  Mauritius,  who  was 
constantly  at  issue  with  our  saint,  and  seized  every  oppor- 


(1)  Homily  18,  on  Ezcchicl. 


(2)  Gothic  »r«r,  ?#.  2. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


394 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


tunity  to  vex  liim  (1).  But  we  need  no  better  defence  of  St 
Gregory  than  is  furnished  by  Rome  at  this  day.  When  we 
look  upon  the  great  number  of  ancient  monuments  which, 
thanks  to  the  fostering  care  and  liberal  expenditure  of  the 
Pope-Kings,  yet  subsist  in  the  Eternal  City,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  Gregory’s  successor  did  not  gaze  upon  any  traces 
of  Papal  vandalism.  And  we  know  that  many  of  the  ancient 
monuments  have  disappeared  since  the  death  of  our  Pontiff 
(2).  Rome  has  withstood  many  vicissitudes  during  the  last 
twelve  hundredyears.  She  has  been  sacked  by  the  foreigner, 
-and  her  treasures  have  been  plundered  by  her  own  turbu- 
lent barons.  Her  Frangipani  and  Savelli  have  pulled  to 
pieces  many  an  ancient  building  to  procure  materials  for  a 
medieval  fortress,  and  she  has  seen  the  Gallic  invader 
weakening  her  admired  masonries  to  provide  metal  for  his 
cannon.  And  in  spite  of  all  this,  the  modern  traveller  is 
awestruck  under  the  spell  of  her  numerous  monuments  of 
ancient  art.  What,  then,  we  would  ask,  must  have  been  the 
extent  and  condition  of  these  monuments,  when  Sabinian 
took  possession  of  the  Chair  of  Peter  ? 

St.  Gregory  died  in  604  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  Pon- 
tificate. His  eulogy  may  be  well  condensed  in  the  words  of 
St.  Ildephonse  of  Toledo,  “ In  holiness,  he  excelled  Anthony; 
in  eloquence,  Cyprian ; and  in  wisdom,  Augustine”  (3). 

(1)  Although  not  a tyrant,  Mauritius  caused  much  trouble  to  St.  Gregory.  Thus,  he  left 
his  Italian  subjects  a prey  to  the  Lombards,  In  spite  of  the  Pontiff’s  assiduous  prayers  for 
their  relief.  He  also  sustained  the  arrogance  of  the  Constantinopolitan  putriarc.ii  in  claim- 
ing  the  title  of  “ (Ecumenical.”  We  have  already  noticed  the  obstacles  he  threw  in  the  way 
of  military  men,  aspiring  to  the  monastic  life.  He  aided  in  every  way  the  defenders  of  the 
Three  Chapters,  and  so  protected  Maximus,  a Dalmatian  schismatic,  that  he  was  enabled  te 
ridicule  the  Papal  authority. 

(2)  See  Fea’s  Dissertation  on  the  Ruins  of  Rome. 

(8)  Ecclesiastical  Writers. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 

At  tlie  time  of  Christ’s  sojourn  upon  earth,  Druidismwas 
the  religion  of  Britain  ; by  whom,  and  when,  the  Gospel  was 
first  introduced  into  the  island,  is  uncertain.  Eusebius  (1) 
says  that  the  Apostles  passed  into  Britain,  and  Gildas  (2) 
seems  to  imply  that  the  conversion  took  place  under  Tiberius. 
More  modern  authors  have  ventured  to  determine  the  name 
of  the  first  Apostle  of  Biitain.  Parsons  (3)  contended  that 
this  glory  belongs  to  St.  Peter ; Godwin  (4)  and  Stillingfleet 
(5)  ascribed  it  to  St.  Paul.  Lingard  (6)  regards  the  argu- 
ments used  by  both  Catholic  and  Protestant  writers,  in  de- 
termining this  question,  as  unworthy  of  attention.  “ The 
former,”  he  says,  “relied  on  the  treacherous  authority  of 
Metaplirastes  ; the  latter  on  the  ambiguous  and  hyperboli- 
cal expressions  of  a few  more  ancient  writers.”  It  is  certain 
that  Christianity  first  took  firm  root  in  Britain,  about  the 
year  182,  in  the  reign  of  Lucius,  the  great-grandson  of  Car- 
actacus,  and  heir  of  some  of  the  authority  given  that  prince 
by  Claudius.  At  the  solicitation  of  Lucius,  Pope  Eleutlier- 
ius  sent  Fugatius  and  Damian  to  instruct  the  Britons,  and 
a flourishing  church  soon  came  into  existence.  The  contro- 
versies which  were  the  bane  of  the  East,  did  not  disturb  the 
less  polished  and  less  inquisitive  islanders,  but  they  were 
not  destined  to  be  never  assailed  by  heresy.  Their  country- 
man, Pelagius,  succeeded  in  propagating  his  errors  to  an 
alarming  extent,  and  it  was  only  by  the  zeal  of  St.  Germain 
l’Auxerrois  and  St.  Lupus  of  Troyes,  that  the  orthodox  faith 
was  sustained  (7).  But  another  formidable  enemy  now  con- 

(1)  Dem.  Evang .,  b.l,  c.  7.  (4)  First  Convavion  of  Britain . 

(2)  Calamltn , Destruction , and  Conquest  of  Britain.  (5)  Brit.  Orig. 

(8)  Three  Conversions , v.  1.  <G)  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church , c.  1. 

(7)  sts.  Germain  and  Lupus  received  their  mission,  according  to  Constantlus,  from  the 
bishops  of  Gaul;  according  to  Prosper,  from  Pope  Oelestine.  These  prelates  met  the  Pela- 
gian leaders  in  a Synod  at  Vorulam.  and  after  a day’s  useless  dehate,  nothing  was  decided, 
but  in  the  evening  a miracle  confirmed  the  teachings  of  St.  Germain,  and  his  opponents  de- 
clared themselves  converted.  But  the  heresv  soon  burst  eut  anew,  and  the  holy  Auxerrolt 
resumed  his  labors— this  time  with  permanent  success.  See  Life  of  St.  Germain , by  Con- 
stantlus, b.  11.  c.  1. 


Digitized  by  VjOOQie 


396 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


fronted  the  British  church.  The  piratical  Saxons,  who,  ac- 
cording to  Ptolemy  (Claude),  had  been,  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, a small  tribe  of  barbarians  in  the  Cimbrian  Cherso- 
nesus,  were  now  become  a mighty  power,  and  were  dominant 
in  the  Germanic  regions.  The  reader  is  doubtless  familiar 
with  the  tale  of  the  Saxon  conquest  of  Britain.  The  natives 
resisted  to  the  utmost,  and  the  incensed  invaders  gave  such 
vent  to  their  fury,  that  the  surviving  Britons  took  refuge  in 
the  fastnesses  of  the  western  coast  of  the  island.  With  them 
vanished  civilization  and  Christianity ; German  barbarism 
and  idolatry  were  conquerors  (1).  But  wherever  the  fierce 
northern  savage  destroyed  the  worldly  empire  of  Rome,  he 
soon  kneeled  in  adoration  to  the  God  of  Rome.  John  the 
Deacon  (2)  gives  us  the  following  narration  of  the  first  steps 
towards  the  conversion  of  the  Anglo-Saxons:  “ On  a certain 

day,  when  many  things  were  exposed  for  sale  in  the  Roman 
Forum,  and  many  persons  had  come  there  to  buy,  it  chanced 
that  Gregory,  a man  most  worthy  before  God,  passed  along. 
Seeing  for  sale  some  youths  of  very  fair  complexion,  of  beau- 
tiful shape  and  charming  features,  and  with  shining  hair,  he 
asked  the  trader  from  what  land  he  had  brought  them.  He 
replied  that  they  came  from  the  island  of  Britain,  the  in- 
habitants of  which  all  possessed  similar  brightness  of 
countenance.  Gregory  asked  whether  the  islanders  were 
Christians,  or  still  involved  in  the  errors  of  Paganism ; the 
merchant  answered  that  they  were  not  Christians,  but  yet 
held  in  Pagan  chains.  Then  Gregory  sighed  heavily,  and 
said,  ‘ Alas ! that  the  prince  of  darkness  should  possess  such 
resplendent  faces,  and  that  such  external  beauty  should  be 
united  to  souls  not  bearing  the  interior  grace  of  God ! ’ Again 
he  demauded  the  name  of  that  people,  and  the  merchant 
said  that  they  were  called  ‘Angles.’  And  he  answered  that 
they  were  well  styled  ‘ Angles,’  as  though  they  were  ‘ Angels/ 
for  they  had  angelic  features,  and  should  be  fellow-citizens 
with  the  angels  of  Heaven.”  Impressed  with  this  idea, 
Gregory  besought  Pope  Benedict  I.  for  permission  to  under- 

(1 ) The  ferocity  displayed  by  the  Saxons  in  this  war  was  such  that  It  would  be  incredible, 
if  narrated  only  by  the  Briton  G l Idas,  but  the  Saxon  Chrome  Ic  corroborates  his  assertions. 

(2)  Life  of  Pttpc  St.  (Jr&jory  the  Great , b.  1,  c.  8.  Venerable  Bede  stives  the  same  account, 
b.  2,  and  says  it  was  handed  down  as  a “ tradition  of  our  ancestors.”  John  the  Deacon  wrote 
In  the  9th  century,  Bede  in  the  7th  and  8th. 


Digitized  by  v^oooLe 


CONVERSION  OP  ENGLAND. 


397 


take  the  conversion  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  He  departed  on 
his  mission,  but,  says  John  the  Deacon,  “ the  Romans  were 
displeased  at  his  absence,  and  conspiring  together,  they  ap- 
proached the  Pontiff  in  three  separate  crowds,  as  he  waa 
going  to  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter,  and  shouted,  ‘ Thou  hast 
offended  Peter ; thou  hast  destroyed  Rome,  in  dismissing 
Gregory.’  ” In  consequence  of  this  attitude  of  the  Romans* 
the  zealous  monk  was  recalled,  to  the  city,  and  his  subse- 
quent election  to  the  Papacy  compelled  him  to  entrust  to- 
others the  accomplishment  of  his  design.  His  first  step  in 
this  direction  was  an  epistle  to  Candidus,  the  administra- 
tor of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter  in  Gaul,  commissioning 
him  to  purchase  a number  of  young  Saxon  slaves,  to  be 
sent  to  Rome,  and  there,  if  they  proved  fit,  to  be  ordained* 
and  sent  a3  missionaries  to  their  countrymen  (1).  The 
youths  did  not  prove  very  bright,  and  the  Pontiff  turned  to 
his  quondam  companions  of  the  Cselian  monastery  for  hia 
instruments.  Under  the  supervision  of  Augustine,  a number 
of  monks  set  out,  bearing  letters  to  the  Gallic  clergy,  asking 
for  interpreters  to  be  assigned  them,  and  also  letters  to  the 
Frank  princes,  begging  their  protection  on  the  way.  They 
landed  on  the  island  of  Thanet,  in  597.  We  do  not  propose 
to  describe  the  conversion  of  the  Heptarchy  ; the  reader 
will  find  the  details  in  Lingard’s  apposite  work,  already  cit- 
ed, and  from  which  we  draw  the  material  for  this  chapter. 

In  the  entire  history  of  Christianity,  there  is  no  instance 
of  a change  wrought  in  a converted  people  equal  to  that 
which  the  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  operated  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxons.  The  various  provinces  of  the  old  Roman  Empire 
had  long  been  subjected  to  the  influences  of  a high  civiliza- 
tion ; these  people  were  not  merely  barbarians,  they  were 
savages.  When  St.  Patrick  preached  the  faith  to  the  Irish, 
he  met  a brave  and  sturdy,  but  yet  a refined  and  gentle  race. 
The  Goths,  Scythians,  Lombards,  and  other  barbaric  na- 
tions, who  entered  the  Christian  fold,  were  endowed  with 
sentiments  of  delicacy,  if  they  are  compared  with  the 
neophytes  of  St.  Augustine.  All  the  Rarbaric  hordes  who 
helped  to  disintegrate  the  great  Empire,  were  valorous,  but 

(1)  Gregory's  Epistles,  b.  5,  No.  10. 


Digitized  byV^jOOQlC 


398 


STUDIES^  m CHURCH  HISTG M. 


the  Saxons  were  simply  brutal.  Other  tribea  ies?red  the 
labor  of  their  captives ; the  Saxons  preferred  to  drink  ale 
out  of  their  skulls.  The  Christian  missionary  expected  to 
be  obliged  to  combat  the  sensual  passions  of  his  converts, 
but,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  ancient  chroniclers,  he  must 
have  been  appalled  by  the  lust  of  the  Saxon.  The  brute 
creation  is  unanimous  in  its  love  for  its  offspring ; the  Sax- 
ons were  so  greedy  of  gold  that  they  sold  their  own  children 
to  the  slave-dealers  of  the  continent.  Their  theology  knew 
but  one  sin,  cowardice  ; it  recognized  but  one  virtue,  courage. 
But  with  the  advent  of  Christianity,  this  terrible  picture 
vanished,  and  the  Saxon  was  no  longer  a monster.  In  a 
short  time,  he  too  took  up  the  work  of  the  apostolate,  and 
St.  Boniface  converted  the  Old  Saxons,  Franks,  Hessians, 
and  Thuringians;  St.  Swibert  the  Westphalians;  Sts.  Wil- 
frid and  Willibrord  the  Frisians  and  the  Hollanders ; St. 
Willihad  the  tribes  north  of  the  Elbe.  Piety  became  a 
characteristic  of  the  nation.  Nowhere  were  churches,  hos- 
pitals, and  monasteries  more  numerous,  or  better  endowed, 
and  nowhere  were  they  attended  by  a more  devoted  clergy ; 
the  land  came  to  be  styled  the  “Island  of  Saints.*’  Religion 
developed  civilization,  or  rather  created  it ; the  useful,  as 
well  as  the  agreeable,  was  cultivated,  and  the  Saxon  bar- 
barian was  soon  to  be  found  only  in  history. 

Protestants  once  held  that  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  was 
a Papistical  institution  from  its  very  foundation.  Bale  in- 
forms us  that  “ Augustine  was  first  sent  to  initiate  the  Anglo- 
Saxons  in  Papistical  traditions  ; he  introduced  altars,  vest- 
ments, masses,  images,  Ac.”  (1).  The  same  author  deli- 
cately asserts  that  Augustine  “ brought  nothing  but  Pon- 
tific  1 traditions  and  human  dung”  (2).  Parker  says  that 
Augustine  was  “ an  apostle  to  the  Angles,  not  of  the  Christ- 
ian faith  and  of  the  divine  word,  but  of  ceremonies  and 
Roman  rites  ; and  he  taught  them  to  be  Romans  and  Pon- 
tificals, rather  than  Christians  and  Evangelicals”  (3).  But 
more  modern  Saxon  scholars  have  discovered  that  the  early 
church  of  their  ancestors  was  not  “ Pontifical,"  but  rather 

(1)  Cent.  13.  c.  1.  (2)  Cent - 8,  c-  85.  The  text  has  sUrcora, 

(3)  Ant.  Brit.,  p.  35. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


399 


vrorthy  of  being  numbered  among  Protestant  organizations. 
Athelhard,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  having  asked  of  the 
bishops  assembled  in  the  Synod  of  Cloveshoe  (y.  803)  for  a 
Profession  of  Faith,  they  answered  (1) : “ Let  it  be  known  to 
your  Paternity,  that  we  believe  as  was  first  taught  by  the  ( 
Holy  Roman  and  Apostolic  See,  by  the  direction  of  the  most  I 
blessed  Pope  Gregory.”  Hence,  according  to  these  investi- 
gators, St.  Gregory  also  was  a Protestant.  It  is  not  difficult, 
however,  to  prove  that  the  faith  of  the  early  Saxon  Christ- 
ians was  what  Parker  called  “ Roman  and  Pontifical.’’  In 
the  first  place,  if  the  Saxon  church  was  not  united  with  i^he 
Roman  in  identity  of  doctrine,  how  can  we  account  for  the 
strict  communion  between  the  two  churches?  How  is  it 
that  Boniface,  Swibert,  Wilfrid,  and  other  Saxon  mission- 
aries preached  the  faith  of  Rome,  among  the  German  bar- 
barians, and  founded  churches  in  communion  with  Rome? 
What  mean  the  professions  of  submission  to  Rome,  the  in- 
numerable acts  of  devotion  to  the  Holy  See,  on  the  part  of 
the  Saxon  kings?  But  let  us  examine  the  doctrines  of  the 
Saxon  church,  as  indicated  by  its  practices. 

It  is  certain  that  the  early  Saxon  Christians  agreed  with 
Rome  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism. 
Protestants,  however,  frequently  assert  that  the  ceremonies 
of  the  Roman  Ritual  were  unknown,  that  the  insufflation 
and  unctions  with  oil  and  chrism  wrere  not  in  u»e.  Yet 
Bede  (2)  mentions  the  insufflation  ; the  Saxon  Pontifical  (3), 
prescribes  the  salt;  Archbishop  ^Elfric  (4)  speaks  of  the 
unction  with  oil  on  the  breast  and  between  the  shoulders, 
and  of  that  with  chrisin  on  the  top  of  the  head  ; Alcuin  (5), 
finally,  gives  the  ceremonies  in  their  entirety.  That  the 
anointings  with  chrism  were  regarded  as  sacred,  is  shown 
by  the  head  being  kept  bound  with  a fillet  for  seven  days(6). 
The  only  difference  between  the  practice  of  the  ancient  and 
that  of  the  modern  English  Catholics,  in  the  ceremonies  at-  | 
tendant  on  Baptism,  seems  to  have  been  in  the  old  custom 
of  giving  the  Eucharist  to  the  lately  baptized  infant  (7). 

(1)  Wilkins;  Councils , p.  102.  (4)  Saron  Laws , p.  172. 

(2)  B.  c.  6.  (5)  Treatise  to  Adrian  in  Duchesne's  Alcuin , part  IL 

(8)  Martene,  v.  1.  (6)  Bede,  b.  5f  c.  7. 

(7)  Saxon  Laus , p.  17? 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


400 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


With  regard  to  Confirmation,  we  know  that  the  child  was 
presented  to  the  bishop,  and  that  he  received  the  gifts  of 
wisdom  and  fortitude  to  assist  him  in  the  spiritual  warfare(l). 
As  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Eucharist,  Anglican  authors,  such  as  Parker,  Lisle,  Usher, 
Whelock,  Hickes,  Carte,  Littleton,  and  Henry,  have  endeav- 
ored to  show  that  Transubstantiation  was  not  the  belief 
of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  Philology  and  history  have  been  tire- 
lessly invoked,  but  among  all  the  Saxon  authors  who 
flourished  during  the  brilliant  period  preceding  the  Danish 
inroads,  not  a passage  can  be  found  denying  the  Catholic 
doctrine  ; among  the  writers  of  the  dark  period  which 
followed  the  Danish  devastations,  there  are  some  expressions 
which  Protestants  eagerly  seize,  but  which  Catholics  as 
eagerly  defend.  The  first  testimony  to  which  we  draw  the 
reader’s  attention  is  from  the  Actions  of  the  Synod  of  Cal- 
cuitli  (816).  From  the  earliest  days  of  the  Church,  no  tem- 
ple could  be  dedicated  unless  it  held  the  remains  of  a mar- 
tyr ; hence,  a small  portion,  at  least,  of  a martyr’s  relics, 
were  deposited  in  every  altar-stone.  In  England,  however, 
it  became  so  difficult  to  observe  this  law,  that  the  Synod  of 
Oalcuitn  (2)  ordered  that  when  relics  could  not  be  obtained, 
the  Blessed  Eucharist  should  be  preserved  in  the  church. 
And  why  ? “ Because  the  Eucharist  is  the  Body  and 

Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  But,  replies  the 
Protestant,  such  a disposition  of  the  Eucharist  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a belief  in  Transubstantiation  ; the  Saxons 
may  have  believed,  as  do  some  Protestants,  that  Christ  is 
present  at  the  act  and  time  of  Communion.  The  context 
shows  that  a permanent,  abiding  presence  is  understood  ; 
for,  in  the  Protestant  supposition,  of  what  significance, 
more  than  any  other  substance,  would  be  the  Eucharistic 
host,  in  lieu  of  the  martyr’s  relics  ? A permanent,  not  a 
transitory  presence  of  our  Lord  is  supposed  by  Bede  (3) 
when  he  says,  “When  we  celebrate  the  Mass,  we  again  im- 
molate to  the  Father  the  sacred  Body  and  the  precious  Blood 

(1)  Bede  ; Life  of  Cutkbert , c.  29  and  82.  Wilkins  ; Council s,  p.  862.  Saxon  Law* 
p.  167. 

(2)  Wilkins  ; Council  of  Calcuith. 

(3)  Homily  on  the  Eve  of  the  Position. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


401 


of  the  Lamb,  with  which  we  have  been  redeemed  from  our 
sins.”  Egbert,  archbishop  of  York,  who  wrote  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  eighth  century,  compiled  a Pontifical,  which  was 
preserved  at  Evreux ; in  the  abbey  of  Iumiege,  another  Anglo- 
Saxon  Pontifical  was  also  extant  in  the  time  of  Martene.  From 
these  two  documents  (1),  we  learn  that  at  the  ordination  of 
a priest,  he  is  endowed  with  the  power  of  “ transforming 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.*'  The  pyx  is  called  “ the 
bearer  of  the  Body  of  Christ,”  and  a “ new  sepulchre 
for  the  Body  of  Christ.”  The  corporate  is  “a  piece  of  linen, 
on  which  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  consecrated, 
and  in  which  they  are  wrapped  up.”  The  altar  is  declared 
to  be  consecrated  in  order  that  on  it  “a  sacred  virtue  may 
turn  the  creatures  chosen  for  sacrifice  into  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Redeemer,  and  transform  them  by  an  invisible 
change,  into  the  Sacred  Hosts  of  the  Lamb,  that  as  the 
Word  was  made  flesh,  so  the  nature  of  the  offering  being 
blessed,  may  be  elevated  to  the  substance  of  the  Word , and  what 
before  was  food , may  here  be  made  eternal  life . ” 

Among  the  works  of  the  Saxon  clergy  which  were  com- 
posed after  the  Danish  invasion,  we  find  some  translations 
and  several  sermons  by  -ZElfric,  a monk  who  had  studied  in 
the  school  of  St.  Ethelwold  at  Winchester,  and  who  finally 
became  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  In  treating  of  the  Eu- 
charist, iElfric  teaches  that  “the  Eucharistic  differs  from 
the  natural  Body  of  Christ,”  and  that  “ the  former  is  indeed 
His  Body,  but  after  a spiritual,  not  after  a bodily  manner  ” 
(2).  Lisle,  Usher,  Henry,  and  other  Protestant  writers,  in- 
terpret this  doctrine  in  their  own  favor,  but  Catholic  dis- 
putants, and  none  better  than  Lingard  (3),  show  that  it  is 
thoroughly  consistent  with  Catholic  orthodoxy.  Among 
the  many  questions  which  the  medieval  scholastics  delight-j 
ed  in  raising,  occurs,  whether  wisely  or  not,  it  is  not  for  us 
to  determine,  one  speculating  upon  the  precise  nature  of 
Christ’s  Eucharistic  Body.  Haimo  of  Halberstadt  held 
that,  as  a sign  is  excluded  by  reality,  so  the  Eucharist  con- 
tained no  mystery  or  sign.  Paschasius,  Hincmar,  and 

(1)  Martini  ; Ancient  Rites  ( y.  1700). 

(2)  Sermon  for  Easter.  (3)  Antiquities,  note  N. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


402 


STUDIES  IN  CTITTttCH  HISTOThY. 


others,  admitted  both  sign  and  reality,  and  added  that  the 
Eucharistic  Body  was  the  identical  one  which  was  born  of 
Mary  and  suffered  on  the  cross.  A third  school,  repre- 
sented by  Ratramn  or  Bertram,  a monk  of  Corbie,  arid 
.Elfric  (1),  rejected  both  the  former  opinions,  and  taught  a 
triple  distinction  of  the  Body  of  Christ : viz.,  that  born  of 
Mary,  the  Eucharistic,  and  the  mystical.  Rabanus  Maurus, 
archbishop  of  Mentz  (2),  one  of  this  school,  declares  that  the 
difference  for  which  they  disputed,  was  merely  as  to  the 
external  appearance ; and  Bertram,  though  trying  to  show 
that  the  natural  is  not  the  same  as  the  Eucharistic  Body, 
plainly  admits  their  identity,  when  he  says  that  Christ 
“ changed  the  substance  of  bread  into  His  own  Body,  which 
was  about  to  suffer,  and  the  creature  of  wine  into  his  own 
Blood,  which  was  to  be  shed  on  the  cross.”  As  to  iElfric’s  be- 
lief in  the  Real  Presence,  it  is  clearly  indicated  in  his  Sermon 
on  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  although  Henry  asserts  that  no 
ingenuity  can  reconcile  his  doctrine  with  that  of  Rome  (3). 
The  reader  shall  judge  whether  the  Saxon  prelate’s  notions 
upon  the  nature  of  the  Sacramental  Body  imply  denial  of 
Transubstantiation,  and  whether  his  doctrine  should  be 
pleasing  to  Protestants.  We  give  Lingard’s  translation  ; the 
Saxon  text  may  be  found  in  Lisle’s  edition  of  1623  (4). 
“Much  is  there  between  the  invisible  might  of  the  holy 
husel,  and  the  visible  appearance  of  its  own  kind.  In  its 
own  kind,  it  is  corruptible  bread  and  corruptible  wine  ; but. 
after  the  might  of  the  divine  word,  it  is  truly  Christ’s  Body 
and  His  Blood,  not  indeed,  in  a bodily,  but  in  a ghostly 
manner.  Much  is  there  between  the  Body,  in  which  Christ 
suffered,  and  the  Body  which  is  hallowed  to  husel.  Truly 
the  Body  in  which  Christ  suffered,  wras  born  of  the  flesh  of 
Mary,  with  blood  and  with  bone,  and  with  skin  and  with 
sinews,  in  human  limbs,  and  with  a reasonable  living  soul. 
But  His  ghostly  Body,  which  we  call  the  husel,  is  gathered  of 
many  corns,  without  blood  and  bone,  without  limbs  and  a 

(1)  The  Danish  devastations  had  seriously  afTeoted  (he  monasteries,  and  when,  in  the  10th 
century.  St.  Dunstan  r«*slored  moimehi-m  in  England,  he  was  forced  to  Import  instructors 
from  French  establishments  Monks  of  Floury  and  Corbie  taught  at  Abingdon  and  Win- 
chester, and  there  .Flfric  received  the  ideas  of  Bertram. 

(2)  M a billon  ; Cent.  4,  v.  2. 

(3)  7/isfory,  t\  2,  p.  202.  (1)  Also,  see  Whelock’s  Bede. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


40$ 


soul,  and  therefore  nothing  is  to  be  understood  in  it  after  a 
bodily,  but  alter  aghostly  manner.  Whatever  there  is  in  the 
husel,  which  giveth  us  the  substance  of  life,  that  cometh  of 
the  ghostly  might  and  invisible  operation.  For  this  reason 
the  holy  husel  is  called  a Sacrament ; because  one  thing  is 
seen  in  it*,  and  another  understood.  That  which  is  seen, 
hath  a bodily  appearance  ; that  which  we  understand,  hath 
a ghostly  might.  Certainly,  Christ’s  Body  that  suffered 
death,  and  arose  from  death,  dies  now  no  more  ; it  is  eter- 
nal and  impassible.  The  husel  is  temporal,  not  eternal ; 
corruptible,  dealed  into  pieces,  chewed  between  the  teeth, 
and  sent  into  the  stomach.  But  it  is  nevertheless  all 
in  every  part  according  to  the  ghostly  might.  Many 
receive  the  holy  Body,  but  it  is  nevertheless  all  in 
every  part  according  to  the  ghostly  Sacrament.  Though 
some  men  receive  a smaller  part,  yet  there  is  not  more 
might  in  a greater  part  than  in  a smaller.  Because 
it  is  entire  in  all  men,  according  to  the  invisible  might. 
This  Sacrament  is  a pledge  and  a figure;  Christs  Body 
is  truth.  This  pledge  we  hold  sacramentally,  till  we 
come  to  the  truth,  and  then  this  pledge  will  end.  Truly 
it  is,  as  we  said  before,  Christ’s  Body  and  His  Blood, 
not  after  a bodily,  but  after  a ghostly  manner.  Nor  shall 
ye  search  how  it  is  made  so  ; but  hold  that  it  is  made  so.” 
Had  iElfric  been  surrounded  by  heretics,  by  men  who  denied 
the  real  and  permanent  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist, 
his  expressions  would  doubtless  have  been  more  guarded,  and 
he  would  have  perhaps  paid  more  attention  to  his  own  in- 
junction at  the  close  of  the  cited  passage.  However,  in 
these  words  there  is  no  source  of  comfort  to  a Protestant 
(1).  All  Catholics  admit  that  in  the  Eucharist  the  Body  of 
Christ  does  not  exist  after  the  manner  of  an  ordinary,  nat- 
ural body,  and  some  adjectives  must  be  employed  to  express 
the  different  modes  of  existence.  Bertram,  JSlfric,  and 
others  used  the  terms  “ naturally  ’’  and  “spiritually;” 
the  Council  of  Trent  adopted  the  words  “ naturally  ’*  and 

(1)  We  should  observe  that,  immediatel  • nfier  the  above  passage,  A£lfric,  as  a proof  of 
the  Real  Presence,  quotes  two  miracles,  In  which  the  sacred  Flesh  and  Blood  were  mani- 
fested in  the  Eucharist.  Whatever  discredit  may  be  given  to  these  events,  it  can  scarcely  be 
believed  that  they  would  be  cited  as  a proof  of  the  Heal  Presence  by  one  who  denied  Tran- 
Hubstantiation. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


4<)4 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


41  sacramentally  ” (1).  iElfric  certainly  denies  the  identity 
of  the  natural  and  the  Eucharistic  Body  of  Christ ; so  do 
some  of  the  most  orthodox  of  Catholic  theologians.  We  cite 
the  more  familiar  Lanfranc,  the  energetic  adversary  of  the  first 
Sacramentarian,  Berengarius  (2),  and  Bossuet  (3).  JElfric 
styles  the  Eucharist  a pledge  and  a figure  ; so  does  the  Cath- 
olic Church  (4).  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  teaching  of  MU 
fric  represents  the  belief  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  This  is 
true,  inasmuch  as  the  whole  nation  believed  that,  in  the 
Mass,  the  bread  and  wine  were  changed  into  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ.  But  his  peculiar  opinion,  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  Eucharistic  Body,  orthodox  though  it  was,  was  not 
held  by  any  other  Saxon  writers,  either  of  his  time,  or  of 
preceding  or  posterior  days.  On  the  contrary,  the  doctrine 
of  the  identity  of  the  natural  and  Eucharistic  Body  was  fre- 
quently taught,  and  seems  to  have  been  the  national  belief. 
We  have  already  quoted  Bede  as  saying  that  the  Body 
of  the  Lamb,  which  is  offered  on  the  altar,  is  the  one  by 
which  we  were  redeemed ; and  in  another  place  (5),  he  says 
“ His  Blood  is  not  now  shed  by  the  hands  of  unbelievers, 
but  received  to  their  salvation  in  the  mouths  of  the  faith- 
ful/1 Alcuin  tells  us  (6)  that  “ the  Mystery  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  called  an  image,  but  the 
truth  ; not  a shadow,  but  the  Body  ; not  a figure  of  things 
to  come,  but  that  which  was  once  prefigured  by  types  ; for 
He  did  not  say  4 this  is  the  figure  of  my  Body,'  but  4 this  is 
my  Body,  which  shall  be  given  for  ye.’  ” In  a MS.  once 
belonging  to  king  Canute  the  Great  (7)  our  Lord  is  said  to 
have  declared  to  His  Apostles  that  44  He  gave  them  His 
Body  to  eat,  and  His  Blood  to  drink,  that  Body  which  He 
should  give  up  to  be  crucified,  and  that  Blood  which  He  should 
shed  for  them.”  In  another  MS.  (8)  of  the  same  date,  it 

,D  Some  modern  theologians  cling  to  “ naturally  ” and  “spiritually.”  See  Veron  ; liulc 
of  Faith,  c.  11. 

(2)  In  his  treatise  against  Berengarius,  c.  18,  the  Norman  prelate  says  that.  If  we  o.  insider 
the  mode  of  existence  of  the  Eucharistic  Body,  we  may  truly  say  that  It  is  not  the  same 
body  which  was  born  of  Mary. 

(3)  Bossuet  asserts  that  '*  in  one  sense,  and  regarding  only  the  substance,  it  is  the  Body  of 
Jesus  Christ,  born  of  Mary  ; but  in  another  sense,  and  regarding  only  the  manner,  it  is  an- 
other, which  is  made  by  His  words.” 

(4)  Office  and  Mass  of  the  Holy  Sacrament ; Anthem  at  Magnificat,  and  Postcommunion. 

(5)  Homily  for  the  Epiphany.  (7)  Cott.  MSS.,  CaL  a.  7. 

(6)  Caroline  Books.  4,  c.  14.  (8)  Ibi,  Tib.  c.  1. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


405 

is  said  that  “ The  Lord  did  not  say  ‘ take  this  consecrated 
bread,  and  eat  it  in  place  of  tny  Body/  or  ‘ drink  this  con- 
secrated wine  in  place  of  my  Blood  ; * bu^,  without  any  fig- 
ure or  circumlocution,  He  said  * this  is  my  Body  ’ and  * this 
is  my  Blood.’  And,  that  He  might  prevent  all  wanderings  of 
■error,  He  said,  ‘ which  Body  shall  be  given  up  for  you/  and 
which  Blood  shall  be  shed  for  you.’  ” 

With  regard  to  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  Henry  con- 
tends that  auricular  confession  was  first  inculcated  to  the 
Saxons  by  archbishop  Theodore,  in  the  seventh  century,  and 
that  it  was  unknown  to  them  before  that  time.  We  might 
dismiss  this  assertion  with  the  remark  that  St.  Augustine 
certainly  converted  the  Saxons  to  the  faith  of  Rome,  which 
just  as  certainly  commanded  auricular  confession.  But 
Henry,  following  in  the  steps  of  Inett  (1),  says  that  private 
■confession,  according  to  the  account  given  of  it  by  Egbert, 
archbishop  of  York  (8th  century)  was  unknown  to  such  of 
the  Saxons  as  were  converted  by  the  Irish  missionaries.  Now, 
Egbert  (2)  says  nothing  about  the  introduction  of  confession, 
and  nothing  about  the  customs  of  the  Saxons  who  were  taught 
by  the  Irish  ; he  does  say,  however,  that,  from  the  time  of 
Theodore,  the  people  had  been  accustomed  to  a twelve  days* 
preparation,  by  fasting,  confession,  and  alms,  for  the  feast 
of  Christmas.  This  by  no  means  implies  that  confession 
was  only  then  introduced  among  them.  St.  Cuthbert  (d.  687) 
was  a pupil  of  the  Irish  missionaries,  and  before  Pope  Vita- 
lian  commissioned  Theodore  to  take  charge  of  the  see  of 
Canterbury  (668),  had  spent  months  receiving  confessions  in 
that  diocese  (3).  That  auricular  confession  was  practised  by 
the  early  Irish  Christians,  we  have  already  seen  when  treat- 
ing of  the  mission  of  St.  Patrick.  Since,  however,  Egbert 
of  York  is  quoted  as  ignorant  of  this  practice,  we  would 
draw  attention  to  this  passage  from  his  Penitential:  “ The 

time  of  duty  comes  every  twelve  months,  when  every  man 
shall  speakto  his  confessor,  and  avow  to  God  and  his  con- 
fessor all  the  sins  he  has  committed.”  Whelock  (4)  asserts 
i;hat  the  Saxon  church  advised,  but  did  not  prescribe,  confes- 

(1)  History  of  the  English  Church*  v.  1.  (3)  Bede  ; Life  of  Cuthbert;  c.  9.  and  16. 

. 4M)  Institutions  of  the  Church.  (4)  History , P-  215.  Index,  art.  Confession. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


406 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


sion;  and  jet  he  furnishes  us  with  two  Homilies,  from  which 
we  extract  the  following  passages:  ‘‘The  holy  Scriptures  fre- 
quently teach  us  to  flee  to  the  medicine  of  true  confession  of 
our  sins ; because  we  cannot  otherwise  be  healed,  except  we 
confess  with  sorrow  what  we  have  unrighteously  done 
through  negligence.  All  hope  of  forgiveness  is  in  confession. 
Confession,  with  true  repentance,  is  the  angelic  remedy  of 
our  sins. . . . Truly  no  man  will  obtain  forgiveness  of  his  sins 
from  God,  unless  he  confess  to  some  one  of  God's  ministers, 
and  do  penance  according  to  his  judgment.” 

It  would  be  very  interesting  to  notice  the  system  of  pub- 
lic penance  of  the  Saxons,  their  consecration  of  virgins  and 
monks  to  the  service  of  God,  the  ceremonies  with  which  they 
dedicated  their  temples,  the  coronation  of  their  kings,  the 
benediction  of  their  knights,  and  many  other  features  which 
denoted  a truly  Catholic  people,  but  our  limits  compel  us  to 
confine  ourselves  to  the  elucidation  of  such  points  as  will 
show  that  the  modern  Anglican  or  dissenter  comes  from  a 
Catholic  ancestor.  English  Protestantism  has  preserved 
some  tattered  remnants  of  nearly  every  Catholic  garment 
with  which  Albion  was  once  clothed,  but  of  one  vesture 
there  is  not  a thread.  We  allude  to  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory, to  the  practice  of  praying  for  tlie  dead.  And  yet  the 
most  rabid  of  our  opponents  admit  that  * this  custom  was 
universal  before  the  fourth  century ; some  grant  that  it 
existed  in  the  second.  Mosheim  ascribes  its  origin  to  Pla- 
tonism, but  Bingham  (1)  made  the  discovery  that  when  our 
ancestors  prayed  for  the  dead,  they  believed  them  to  be  al- 
ready in  heaven.  Whelock  (2)  asserts  that  the  Saxons  did 
uot  believe  in  purgatory,  but  he  uses  only  the  argument 
derived  from  the  fact  that  some  homilists  say  that,  after  the 
general  judgment,  the  virtuous  will  be  rewarded,  and  the 
wicked  everlastingly  punished ; while  all  Catholics  admit 
that  then  purgatory  will  be  no  more  Whelock  must  have 
missed  the  following  passage,  taken  from  a Saxon  sermon  on 
the  dedication  of  a church,  and  published  by  himself: 
“There  are  also  many  places  of  punishment,  in  which  soul* 

(1)  Antiqvitics  of  the  Cht'iMian  Church  % v.  1,  p.  758,  v.  2.  p.  440. 

(2)  Preface  to  tiic  Arcnaionomia. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


407 


suffer  in  proportion  to  their  guilt,  before  the  general  judg- 
ment, and  in  which  some  are  so  far  purified,  as  not  to  be  hurt 
by  the  fire  of  the  last  day.”  Among  the  devotions  for  the 
departed,  we  find  the  “ belt  of  Lord’s  prayers,”  a species 
of  rosary;  the  anthem,  * O Lord,  according  to  Thy  great 
mercy  give  rest  to  his  soul,  and  in  consideration  of  Thy 
infinite  goodness,  grant  that  he  may  enjoy  eternal  light  in  com- 
pany with  thy  saints;”  andfinally,  the  chief  devotion  of  all,  the 
offering  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  for  the  departed  soul.  We 
are  told  that  the  object  of  all  these  devotions  was  simply  a 
thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  happiness  already  enjoyed  by 
the  dead.  But  not  so  thought  the  bishops  of  the  Synod  of 
Calcuith,  when  they  ordered  prayers  for  themselves,  after 
their  deaths,  “ that  by  means  of  a common  intercession, 
they  might  merit  a common  eternal  kingdom  with  all  the 
saints”  (1). 

Immediately  upon  the  death  of  St.  Wilfrid,  the  abbot 
Tatbert,  of  the  great  monastery  at  Ripon,  ordered  a mass 
to  be  celebrated,  and  alms  to  be  given  to  the  poor,  for  the 
repose  of  his  soul ; on  his  anniversary,  all  the  abbots,  of  the 
many  monasteries  he  had  founded,  were  summoned,  and  a 
night  was  spent  in  vigil  and  prayer,  while  the  next  morning,  a 
Requiem  mass  was  sung,  and  a tenth  part  of  all  the  abbey’s 
cattle  was  given  to  the  poor  (2).  Lullus,  the  successor  of  St. 
Boniface  in  the  see  of  Mentz,  received  from  the  king  of  Kent 
and  the  bishop  of  Rochester,  a common  letter,  saying,  “ It 
is  our  earnest  wish  to  recommend  ourselves  and  our  dearest 
relatives  to  your  piety,  that  by  your  prayers  wre  may  be 
protected  till  we  come  to  that  life  which  knows  no  end.  . . . 

. . Let  us  then  agree,  that  when  any  one  among  us  enters 
the  path  which  leads  to  another  life  (may  it  be  a life  of 
happiness !),  the  survivors  shall,  by  their  alms  and  sac- 
rifices, try  to  help  him  in  his  journey.  We  have  sent  you 
the  names  of  our  dead  relatives,  Irmige,  Norththry,  and 
Dulicha,  virgins  dedicated  to  God,  and  beg  that  you  will 
xemember  them  in  your  prayers  and  oblations”  (3). 

(1)  Wilkins;  Council  of  Calcuith.  (2)  Eddius  ; Life  of  WQfrid. 
i3)  Epixtlexof  St.  Boniface , No.  77. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


408 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Invocation  of  the  saints  was  practiced  by  the  Saxons,  and 
a pre-eminence  was  given  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Bede  tells> 
us  a hymn  was  sung  each  evening  in  her  honor,  and  in  the 
old  Saxon  Pontificals  we  find  many  of  the  hymns  which  are 
now  read  in  the  Breviary . Among  the  many  homilies  which 
have  come  down  to  us,  occur  several  for  the  feasts  of  the 
Nativity,  Annunciation,  Purification,  and  the  Assumption 
of  Mary.  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  occupied  the  next  place  in 
the  devotion  of  the  Saxons,  and  many  of  their  first  churches 
w’ere  dedicated  to  God  in  his  honor.  Pilgrimages  were 
made  to  his  tomb,  and  the  Saxons  were  the  originators  of 
*•  Peter’s  Pence.”  Sts.  Gregory  and  Augustine,  to  whom 
they  principally  owed  their  conversion,  were  venerated  as 
patrons  of  England  ; St.  Boniface,  shortly  after  his  death, 
was  made  a third  patron  (1).  But  we  need  not  develop  this 
point.  Protestants  admit  the  “ excessive  superstition”  of 
the  Saxons  in  this  matter,  and  generally  regard  their  saints 
as  either  fanatics,  canonized  by  ignorance,  or  profligates, 
owing  their  honor  to  the  gifts  which  they  lavished  upon  the 
monasteries  (2). 

The  sentiments  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  with  regard 
to  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  now  claim  our  at- 
tention. St.  Peter  is  styled  by  Bede  “ the  prince  of  the 
Apostles,  the  shepherd  of  all  believing  nations”  (3) ; Alcuin 
calls  him  “ the  head  of  the  chosen  flock”  (4) ; St.  Aldhelm 
attributes  to  him  as  a peculiar  privilege,  “ the  royal  power 
of  binding  and  loosing”  (5).  Nor  did  these  Saxon  fathers 
think  that  St.  Peter’s  power  died  with  him,  for  Bede  de- 
clares that  the  Roman  Pontiff  “ holds  the  chief  Pontificate 
in  the  whole  world”  (6)  ; and  Alcuin  calls  him  “ the  head 
of  all  Christian  churches’'  (7).  The  veneration  of  the  Sax- 
ons for  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  is  shown  by  the  numerous 
pilgrimages  made  to  Rome,  in  spite  of  all  the  difficulties  of 


(1)  Epist.  of  St.  Cuthhcrt  to  LuUm , in  Epist.  Bonify  No.  70. 

(2)  Thus  Sturges  amt  Rapln.  See  LingarcTs  Antiquities , c.  9. 
<3>  B.  2,  e.  4.  HoinUg  on  Vig.  of  St.  Andrew. 

(4)  Epistle  to  Abp.  Eanhahl. 

(5)  Fqdst.  to  king  Grronttus , In  Epist.  of  Boniface , No.  44. 

(6)  B.  2,  c.  1.  Homil  i for  Feast  of  St.  Benedict. 

(7)  Epistles  ,*o  I'opr.’  Admn  and  Leo. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVEBSION  OF  ENGLAND.  409 

travel  at  that  day ; besides  crowds  of  nobles  and  prelates, 
the  king3  Caedwalla,  Ina,  Offa,  Kenred,  Siric,  Ethelwulph, 
and  Canute,  went  to  Rome  to  implore  the  Papal  benediction. 
The  Pope’s  charter  was  considered  of  greater  importance 
than  that  of  the  king,  for  the  perpetuity  of  an  institution ; 
hence  the  numerous  Bulls  creating  or  endorsing  religious 
establishments,  and  threatening  their  violators  with  the 
punishments  of  Dathan,  Abiron,  and  Judas.  Certain  modern 
writers  have  asserted  that  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings  exercised 
a spiritual  jurisdiction  (l),but  the  records  of  the  time  fur- 
nish no  proof  of  such  exercise,  or  even  of  any  claim  to  it. 
Wintred,  king  of  Kent  (692),  says  “it  is  the  right  of  the  king 
to  appoint  earls,  ealdormen,  shire-reeves,  and  doomsmen ; 
but  it  is  the  right  of  the  archbishop  to  rule  and  provide  for 
the  church  of  God”  (2).  Sometimes,  indeed,  the  king  is 
called  the  Yicar  of  Christ,  but  the  Saxon  Laws  explain 
the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  applied.  “ The  king  ought 
to  be  a father  to  his  people,  and  in  watchfulness  and  care, 
the  vicar  of  Christ,  as  he  is  called.”  The  Anglo- 
Saxon  monarchs  claimed  no  right  to  establish,  extend, 
or  restrict,  episcopal  jurisdiction ; such  pertained  to  the 
Papal  prerogative.  The  first  ecclesiastical  partition  of 
England  was  made  by  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  and  not  by 
the  kings  of  the  Heptarchy,  or  by  the  missionaries.  When 
events  prevented  the  execution  of  the  original  plan,  Pope 
Yitalian  placed  all  the  Saxon  bishops  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  ; sixty  years  afterwards, 
Gregory  III.  restored  the  primacy  to  York,  and  very  soon, 
Adrian  I.  gave  the  metropolitan  jurisdiction  to  Lichfield, 
which,  though  displeasing  to  the  other  prelates,  was  re- 
spected until  withdrawn  by  Leo  III.  The  Synod  of  Clove- 
shoe  (803)  says  of  this  contest  for  precedence,  “ When  the 
Apostolic  Pope  understood  the  injustice  which  had  been 
done,  he  at  once  interposed  his  authority,  and  sent  orders 
into  England  that  the  honor  of  the  see  of  St.  Augustine 
should  be  fully  restored.”  But  not  only  were  the  powers  of 
the  Saxon  metropolitans  circumscribed  by  Rome ; their 

(1)  Coki  ; Report p.  5.  (2)  Wilkins  : Councils. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


410 


STUDIES  IN  CHUIiCH  HISTORY. 


slection  had  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Pontiff.  The  archbish- 
ops did  not  receive  the  pallium  (1),  as  a rule,  until  they  had 
presented  themselves  at  Rome,  and  undergone  an  examina- 
tion as  to  faith,  fitness,  <fcc.  ; but  St.  Gregory  had  dispensed 
the  Saxon  primates  from  the  laborious  journey,  and  his  im- 
mediate successors  had  continued  the  exemption.  Abuses 
having  crept  into  the  Saxon  church,  and  birth  and  wealth 
having  sometimes  influenced  the  choice  of  bishops,  the 
Holy  See,  in  t lie  interests  of  religion,  resolved  to  enforce 
the  ancient  discipline.  The  Saxon  prelates  murmured  and 
demurred,  but  yet  they  submitted  (2).  The  supremacy  of 
the  Roman  See  over  the  Saxon  church,  is  also  evident  from 
the  supervision  constantly  exercised  by  the  Pontiffs  over 
religious  matters  in  the  island.  In  G80,  Pope  Agatho  sum- 
moned Theodore  of  Canterbury  and  his  suffragans  to  attend 
a Roman  Synod,  called  to  check  Monothelitism,  but  the 
British  prelates  begged  to  be  excused  on  account  of  the 
necessities  of  their  infant  churches.  Ihe  Pontiff  granted 
the  request,  but  demanded  a Profession  of  their  faith,  ap- 
pointing as  Papal  legate  to  receive  it,  John,  abbot  of  St. 
Martin’s.  The  bishops  met  the  legate  at  Hethfield,  and 
declared  their  acceptance  of  the  oecumenical  Councils,  and 
of  the  condemnation  of  Monethelitism  by  Pope  Martin  I.; 
the  legate  then  sent  a copy  of  the  Synodical  acts  to  Rome 
(3).  Some  of  the  Canterbury  prelates  were  wanting  in  ac- 
tivity, if  not  in  piety,  and  reports  reached  Pope  Zachary  of 
Saxon  immorality  ; archbishop  Cutlibert  and  his  suffragans 
were  therefore  threatened  with  excommunication,  if  they 
did  not  enforce  the  canons.  The  Synod  of  Cloveshoe  was 
convoked,  and  thirty  reformatory  canons  were  issued,  affect- 
ing the  morals  of  bishops,  priests,  monks,  and  laity.  The 
Acts  of  this  Synod  describe  the  admonitory  epistle  of  Pope 
Zachary  in  language  which  plainly  denotes  willing  acqui- 
escence in  Papal  supremacy.  “ Two  letters  of  the  Apostolic 

(1)  The  pallium  Is  a vestment  sent  by  the  Pope  to  archbishops,  and  until  Its  reception,  cer- 
tain imiK»rtaut  functions  cannot  be  performed  by  the  said  prelates.  When  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  had  received  the  pallium,  he  was  called  a legate  of  the  Holy  See.  Tlius  Brith- 
wald.  although  a Saxon  and  elected  by  the  clergy  of  Canterbury,  Is  styled  by  his  own  mes- 
sengers. ‘ archbishop  of  the  church  of  Canterbury  and  of  all  Britain,  sent  from  this  Apos- 
tolic see."  Eddii'S,  Lift  of  1 Vilfrid,  c.  51. 

(2)  Wilkins,  Councils,  year  1031.  (3)  Bkdi;  B 4,  c.  18. 


Digitized  by  Vjooole 


, C0NVEB8I0N  OF  ENGLAND. 


411 


lord,  Pope  Zachary,  were  brought  forward,  and  what  he 
commanded,  in  his  Apostolic  authority,  was  plainly  and 
with  great  diligence  made  known,  and  more  clearly  inter- 
preted in  our  own  language.  For  in  these  writings  he 
familiarly  admonished  the  inhabitants  of  our  race  in  this 
island  of  Britain,  and  truly  accused  them,  and  finally,  lov- 
ingly exhorted  them  ; those,  however,  who  would  contemn 
all  this,  and  would  persist  pertinaciously  in  their  malice, 
he  threatened  with  the  certain  sentence  of  anathema  ” (^1). 
The  25th  canon  of  this  Synod  is  alleged  by  Henry  to  have 
been  framed  “ to  guard  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
Popes.”  It  reads,  “ If  a bishop  is  unable  to  correct  and 
amend  anything  in  his  diocese,  let  him  bring  it  before  the 
archbishop  in  Synod,  to  be  openly  corrected  by  all.” 
Henry  urges  that  this  canon  militates  against  appeals  to 
Borne,  but  St.  Boniface,  who  originally  composed  it,  adds 
immediately  after  it,  “ for  thus,  unless  I err,  all  bishops 
should  make  known  to  the  metropolitan,  and  he  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff \ if  they  cannot  correct  their  flocks,  and  thus  they 
will  be  foreign  to  the  loss  of  their  souls  ” (2).  In  the  reign 
of  Pope  Adrian  L,  the  bishops  of  Ostia  and  Tudertum  were 
sent  as  legates  (3)  to  the  Saxon  church,  with  a code  of  laws  for 
its  use.  They  held  a Synod  in  Mercia, and  one  in^orthumbria; 
they  published  twenty  canons,  and  exacted  from  each  bishop  a 
solemn  promise  to  enforce  them.  Carte  contends  that  this  le- 
gation was  merely  a renewal  of  correspondence  between  the 


(1)  Henry  discovers  In  the  2nd  canon  of  Cloveshoe  “ a sufficient,  proof  that  the  clergy  of 
England  were  not  yet  disposed  to  bend  their  necks  to  the  Intolerable  and  Ignominious  yoke 
of  Rome.”  Vo l.  ///.,  p.  225.  Premising  that  **  probably  ” the  synod  was  held  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  St.  Boniface,  and  that  its  canons  were  chiefly  taken  from  the  synod  of  Mentz,  he 
says  that  the  Saxon  prelates  altered  the  canon  on  the  unity  of  the  Church  ” ; that  while  St. 
Boniface  had  professed  obedience  to  the  Pont! IT,  the  Saxons  make  no  mention  of  Rome. 
But  the  bishops  of  Cloveshoe  expressly  state  that  they  assembled  because  of  the  command  of 
Pope  Zachary  ; and  so  far  are  the  thirty  canons  from  being  derived  from  the  nine  of  Mentz, 
ther^  is  scarcely  a passage  in  which  they  bear  resemblance.  Finally  there  is  no  canon, 
either  of  Mentz  or  of  Cloveshoe,  on  the  ’*  unity  of  the  Church  ” ; there  Is  one,  however,  on  the 
“ unity  of  peace,”  applying  only  to  the  subscribers,  but  which  Henry  has  impudently  fal- 
sified. firstly,  by  omitting  the  agreement  to  live  In  peace,  which  restricts  the  meaning  of  the 
canon  to  the  signers  and  secondly,  by  translating  cos  (themselves)  all  the  clergy  in  the 
world.”  The  .lets  tell  us  that  ” The  prelates  turned  to  each  other  with  words  of  mutual 

exhortation and  they  entered  into  an  engagement,  that  intimate  peace  and  sincere 

charity  should  forever  dwell  among  themselves,  and  that  there  should  be  a concord  of  all  in 
all  ecclesiastical  rights,  in  speech,  in  word,  and  in  judgment,  without  flattery  of  anv  person.” 
There  was  no  reason  whv  the  prelates  of  Cloveshoe  should  speak  of  their  submission  to 
Rome,  but  there  was  every  reason  for  Boniface  so  doing,  as  he  had  been  sent  among  the 
pagan  Germans  by  the  Pontiff. 

(2)  Epistle  to  Cuthbert , in  Wilkins,  p.  91. 

(8)  Hume  misses  this  legation,  as  well  as  that  of  the  abbot  John,  under  Pope  Agatho,  when 
he  says  that  Ermanfroi  of  Sion,  three  centuries  afterwards,  was  the  first  Papal  legate  to 
Britain.  History,  c.  4. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


412 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


churches  of  Rome  and  England,  but  the  letter  of  the  legates 
to  the  Pontiff  shows  that  they  were  invested  with  authority. 
“We  wrote  Capitulars  on  each  matter,  and  having  ar- 
ranged all  things  in  order,  brought  them  to  their  notice. 
With  all  due  humility  they  received  both  your  admonition 
and  our  littleness,  and  promised  to  obey  in  all  things  ” (1). 

The  history  of  St.  Wilfrid,  bishop  of  York,  furnishes  an 
excellent  proof  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  over 
the  early  Saxon  church,  although  Carte,  and,  imitating  him. 
many  other  Protestant  writers,  try  to  evince  the  contrary. 
This  prelate,  owing  to  the  impatient  zeal  of  Theodore  of 
Canterbury,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  wicked  enmity  of 
Egfrid  and  Ermenburga,  king  and  queen  of  Northumbria, 
on  the  other,  suddenly  found  his  extensive  diocese  divided 
into  three,  and  himself  left  without  subjects  (2).  His  re- 
monstrances being  treated  with  contempt,  he  took  the  ad- 
vice of  some  of  his  episcopal  friends,  and  appealed  to  Rome 
(3).  Had  Theodore  held  the  views  which  some  Protestants 
ascribe  to  the  Saxon  church,  he  would  have  ridiculed  this 
appeal.  But,  on  the  contrary,  he  endeavored  to  first  get 
the  ear  of  the  Pontiff,  and  when  Wilfrid  arrived  in  Rome 
((578),  he  found  that  Coenwald,  an  envoy  of  Theodore,  had 
already  presented  his  side  of  the  case.  Nevertheless,  Pope 
Agatho  convened  a Synod,  composed  of  the  suburban  bish- 
ops and  fifty  of  the  Roman  clergy,  and  listened  to  the  plea 
of  Wilfrid.  The  result  was  that  Wilfrid  was  restored  to 
his  diocese  of  York,  but  he  was  ordered  to  choose  from 
among  his  clergy  a certain  number  of  bishops  to  help  him 
in  its  government ; this  decision  was  coupled  with  a decree 
of  suspension  against  any  cleric,  and  of  excommunication 
against  any  layman,  who  wrould  presume  to  oppose  it. 
Wilfrid  now  returned  to  England,  but  Egfrid  threw  him 
into  prison.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  enemies  of  the  holy 
bishop  did  not  deny  the  Papal  right  to  interfere  in  this  case. 
During  the  nine  months  of  his  confinement,  they  endeavored, 
by  promises  and  threats,  to  make  him  avow  that  the  pre- 
sumed decision  was  a forgery,  or  at  least  procured  by  bri- 
bery. For  several  years  Wilfrid  was  exiled  from  his  diocese, 

(1)  Wilki.vs  ; Council# , />.  146.  (2)  For  details,  see  Li»ffard’s  Antiquities , c.  5. 

(3)  Epdius;  Life  of  Wilfrid , c.  24. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


413 


but  finally  the  primate  Theodore  repented  of  his  conduct, 
and  wrote  intercessory  letters  for  him  to  the  kings  of  Mer- 
cia and  Northumbria.  Aldfrid,  the  new  ruler  of  Northum- 
bria, restored  him  to  York,  and  for  five  years  he  adminis- 
tered its  ecclesiastical  affairs.  But  new  persecutions  arrived, 
and  Wilfrid  fled  into  Mercia  (1).  To  settle  matters,  j 
Brithwald,  the  successor  of  Theodore,  called  a Synod  in 
Northumbria,  to  which  Wilfrid  was  invited.  When  asked 
to  abide  by  the  decision  of  his  metropolitan,  Wilfrid  replied 
that  he  would  do  so,  “ if  that  decision  be  not  contrary  to- 
the  canons,  and  to  the  declarations  of  the  Apostolic  See/’ 
Another  appeal  to  Borne  now  ensued.  Wilfrid  conducted 
his  own  case  before  Pope  John  V.,  while  his  opponents  were 
represented  by  a deputation  of  monks.  Seventy  times  waa 
the  question  debated,  and  after  four  months  ’ discussion,  the 
Pontiff  decided  in  accordance  with  a compromise  proposed 
by  Wilfrid  himself  (2).  This  history  of  Wilfrid  speaks 
so  plainly  in  favor  of  the  Papal  supremacy  over  the  Saxon 
church,  that  Carte  uses  every  exertion  to  misrepresent  it. 
Thus,  speaking  of  the  saint’s  first  appeal  to  Borne,  he  re- 
fers to  Eddius,  c.  24,  as  proof  that  “ Wilfrid’s  appeal  appeared 
so  new  and  singular,  that  it  occasioned  general  laughter,  as 
a thing  quite  ridiculous.”  But  the  fact  is  that  Eddius.  c.  24, 
says  no  such  thing ; he  tells  us  that  “the  flatterers  of  the  king 
expressed  their  joy  in  laughter,”  and  adds  the  reason  in  the 
words  of  Wilfrid,  “ who  laugh  because  of  my  condemnation.” 
Carte  also  asserts  that  the  king  would  not  restore  Wilfrid,  be  « 
cause  he  deemed  the  Pontiff  s course  derogatory  to  the  rights 
of  the  crown.  But  Eddius,  c.  33,  assigns  as  the  royal  pretext, 
the  accusation  that  the  saint  had  procured  the  Pope’s  de- 
cision by  bribery.  Carte  quotes  Eddius.  c.  25,  as  authority 
for  the  assertion  that  the  king  offered  Wilfrid  a part  of  his 
old  diocese,  if  he  would  deny  the  authority  of  the  Pontifical 
mandate  ; but  Eddius,  c.  25,  says  this  offer  was  made  on  | 
condition  that  Wilfrid  would  deny  the  authenticity  of  the 

(1)  Wilfrid  had  been  ordered  by  the  king  to  surrender  the  monastery  of  Rlpon,  to  which 
he  was  greatly  attached,  that  It  might  be  made  a bishopric  for  another  prelate.  His  ene- 
mies thought  that  he  would  refuse  to  obey,  and  would  hence  be  ruined.  Rlpon  had  been 
greatly  improved  by  Wilfrid,  and  its  monks,  the  first  Benedictines  of  the  north  of  England, 
revered  him  as  a father. 

U)  Wilfrid  .<  >Uii<  : ~”<‘ater  part  of  his  diocese,  and  secured  the  possession  of  his  two 

favorite  inouaAu;riv£>  of  itipon  and  Hexham. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


414 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


mandate.  Carte  contends,  on  the  authority  of  Theodore’s 
letter  to  king  Ethelred,  that  the  prelate  of  Canterbury  was 
reconciled  finally  with  Wilfrid,  not  because  of  his  respect 
for  the  Pope’s  decision,  but  on  account  of  his  personal  ven- 
eration for  Wilfrid.  But  in  this  very  letter  to  Ethelred, 
Theodore  alleges  the  Papal  mandate  as  the  cause  of  his 
reconciliation.  “ Therefore  I,  the  humble  bishop  Theodore, 
decrepit  with  age,  suggest  this  to  your  Blessedness,  because, 
as  you  know,  Apostolic  authority  commands  it”  (1).  In 
dismissing  this  episode  of  St.  Wilfrid,  we  would  remark 
that,  about  the  same  time,  occurred  the  appeal  of  Egwin  of 
Worcester  to  Borne,  and  with  equal  success.  In  fine,  the 
use  of  appeals  to  the  Holy  See  was,  from  this  period,  estab- 
lished among  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  among  the  laws  col- 
lected by  archbishop  Egbert  for  the  clergy  of  York,  there  is 
a canon  which  formally  declares  their  legality. 

We  shall  now  briefly  touch  upon  a point,  which,  though 
merely  of  discipline,  and  therefore,  if  the  Church  were  to  so 
will,  subject  to  change,  is  seized  by  many  Protestant  writ- 
ers (2),  as  showing  a great  difference  between  the  early  Sax- 
on church  and  that  of  Borne.  It  is  asserted  that  the  Homan 
Pontiffs  enjoined  celibacy  upon  the  clergy  only  in  the  tenth 
century  ; that  hence,  for  nearly  five  hundred  years  after 
their  conversion,  the  Saxon  clergy  wrere  allowed  to  marry. 
We  shall  treat  of  the  origin  of  clerical  celibacy  in  a special 
chapter,  but  as  concerns  the  Saxon  church,  we  would  ask 
our  opponents  for  some  positive  proof,  however  slight,  that 
marriage  was  ever  permitted  to  the  Saxon  clergymen.  Inett, 
says  Lingard,  is  the  only  author  who  has  ventured  to  cor- 
roborate such  an  assertion  by  an  appeal  to  contemporary 
authority,  and  he  refers  to  the  Penitentiary  of  Theodore, 
4<  which  was  published  by  Petit  with  so  many  interpolations 
that  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  the  original  from  the 
spurious  matte r.”  In  this  Penitentiary,  we  read  that  “ it  is 
not  permitted  to  men  to  have  females  as  nuns,  nor  to  females 
(to  have)  men  (as  monks)  ; nevertheless,  let  us  hot  destroy 


(1)  Wilkins;  Ep.  Thtod.  Eddius:c.42. 

(2)  Matthew  Tindall's  translation  of  Rapln’s  History  of  England.  Hums;  Hitt.,  c.  X, 
Burton  ; Mjjnast.  of  York. 

4 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


415 


the  custom  of  the  country  (1)."  How  this  passage  can  be 
construed  as  referring  to  marriage,  we  do  not  perceive  ; but, 
if  we  suppose  that  allusion  is  made  to  the  double  monas- 
teries, those  where  both  sexes  were  admitted,  though  with  a 
separation,  then  the  canon  has  a meaning,  viz.,  the  condem- 
nation of  such  establishments.  But  the  discipline  founded 
by  St.  Augustine  in  England,  is  proved  to  have  been  celi- 
bitic,  by  the  epistle  of  Pope  St.  Gregory  the  Great  to  the  holy 
missionary,  sent  in  reply  to  one  asking  for  advice  on  many 
disciplinary  points  (2).  The  Pontiff  says  that  “ clerics,  who 
are  not  in  sacred  orders , if  they  cannot  contain  ttiemselves, 
ought  to  take  wives.”  And  the  same  is  forcibly  expressed 
by  Ceolfrid,  abbot  of  Weremouth  (3),  saying  that  clerics 
ought  to  crucify  their  flesh  with  its  vices  and  concupis- 
cences   they  should  bind  themselves,  for  the  Lord,  with 

tighter  chains  of  chastity.”  Bede  (4)  tells  us  that  without 
that  chastity  which  restrains  one  from  the  appetite  for  carnal 
union,  no  one  should  enter  the  priesthood,  or  be  consecrat- 
ed to  the  ministry  of  the  altar  ; that  is,  unless  he  is  either  a 
virgin,  or  has  dissolved  the  marital  connection.’’  Archbishop 
Egbert  (5)  says  that  “ neither  priests  nor  deacons  can  take 
wives.”  In  his  Penitentiary , he  declares  that  “ God  s priests 
and  deacons,  and  God’s  other  servants,  who  should  serve 
in  God’s  temple,  and  touch  the  Sacrament  and  the  holy 
books,  should  always  observe  their  chastity.’  In  the  same 
work,  although  as  yet  Holy  Orders  had  not  been  made  a 
“ diriment  ” impediment  to  Matrimony,  degradation  is  pro- 
nounced against  the  priest  or  deacon  who  married.  And  it 
is  also  decreed  that  “ if  any  man  in  orders,  bishop,  priest, 
monk,  • deacon,  had  his  wife,  ere  he  was  ordained,  and 
forsook  her  for  God’s  sake,  and  received  ordination,  and 
they  afterwards  return  together  again  through  lust,  let 
each  fast,  according  to  his  order,  as  is  written  above  with 
respect  to  murder’*  (6).  Such  was  the  discipline  of  the 
ancient  Saxon  church,  and  if,  when  the  invasions  of  the 
Danes  had  nearly  destroyed  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil 
order,  many  of  the  clergy  were  guilty  of  its  violation,  the 

(1)  The  parentheses  are  Inserted  by  us,as  necessary  to  the  sense.  (4)  Taber.,  b.  3,  c.  0. 

(2)  Works , b.  12,  epist.  81.  Bedk  ; b.  1,  c.  27.  (5)  Extracts , can.  160. 

(8)  Epistle  to  kino  Naiton , in  Bede,  b.  6,  b.  21.  (6)  That  Is,  for  ten  or  seven  years. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


416 


STUDIES  IN  - CHURCH  HISTORY. 

. I ' ‘A  . 


Church  never  approved  of  their  conduct,  but,  whenever  the 
nature  of  the  times  permitted  her  to  attempt  the  restoration 
of  order,  she  enforced  the  celibacy  of  her  servants. 

We  have  as  yet  only  alluded  to  the  British  church,  which, 
at  the  time  of  St.  Augustine’s  arrival  among  the  Anglo- 
Saxons  of  the  heptarchy  (1),  was  leading  a precarious  life 
in  the  mountains  of  Wales.  If  we  may  credit  the  assertions 
of  Gildas,  their  countryman  and  contemporary,  the  British 
clergy  of  the  sixth  century  had  fearfully  fallen  from  the 
sanctity  of  their  profession.  The  dignities  of  the  Church 
were  bought  with  presents,  or  seized  by  force,  “ and  the 
fortunate  candidate  was  more  frequently  indebted  for  his 
success  to  the  arms  of  his  kindred,  than  to  the  justice  of  his 
pretensions.  Indolence  had  induced  a passion  for  ebriety 
and  excess ; the  patrimony  of  the  poor  was  sacrificed  to  the 
acquisition  of  sensual  gratifications ; the  most  solemn  oaths 
were  sworn  and  violated  with  equal  facility ; and  the  son,  from 
the  example  of  his  father,  readily  imbibed  a contempt  for 
clerical  chastity”  (2).  This  state  of  affairs  was  undoubtedly 
due  to  the  relaxation  of  discipline,  consequent  upon  the 
long  and  fearful  wars  writh  the  Saxons.  To  remedy  these 
evils,  Pope  St.  Gregory  invested  St.  Augustine  with  juris- 
diction over  the  British  hierarchy,  but  it  was  not  easy  to 
enforce  a recognition  of  that  jurisdiction.  Augustine  was  a 
foreigner,  and  was  connected  with  the  hated  Saxon  ; to  bend 
to  his  authority  seemed  tantamount  to  subjecting  themselves 
again  to  the  barbarian.  Again,  the  Homan  missionary  was 
of  stern  and  uncompromising  morality — no  pleasing  omen 
for  their  soft  and  enticing  sins.  However,  St.  Augustine 
directed  himself  to  the  task.  Helped  by  Ethelbert,  king  of 
Kent,  recently  converted  to  the  faith,  1 e arranged  a meeting 
with  the  British  bishops  at  the  frontier.  For  an  entire  day 
he  exhorted,  instructed,  and  threatened,  and  although  a 
miracle  is  said  to  have  somewhat  touched  their  obstinacy, 

(1)  We  use  the  word  “ heptarchy  ” In  deference  to  custom,  although  England  was,  at  Uiat 
time,  an  " octarchy.”  Bernieia  and  beira  had  not  yet  coalesced  In  the  kingdom  of  North- 
umbria. 

(2)  Lingard;  Antiquities  r.  2.  The  pious  indignation  of  Gildas  may  have  caused  him  to 
color  his  picture  very  highly,  but  that  it  was  substantially  correct,  one  Is  led  to  believe  by 
the  treatment  accorded  by  ihe  Britons  to  Augustine.  Their  obstinacy  can  be  accounted  for, 
only  in  the  supposition  of  their  corruption. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONVERSION  OF  ENGLAND. 


417 


A-ngnstine  prevailed  no  further  than  receiving  a promise  for 
another  conference.  Before  the  British  prelates  came  to 
the  second  meeting,  they  consulted  a certain  holy  hermit 
This  individual  told  them  that  if,  at  the  interview,  Augus- 
tine arose  and  advanced  towards  them,  they  might  regard 
him  as  worthy  of  attention ; but  that  they  should  contemn 
him.  if  he  kept  his  seat  (1).  It  happened  that  Augustine 
did  not  arise  to  meet  the  British  bishops,  and  accordingly, 
they  rejected  his  demands.  These  were:  that  they  should 
conform  to  the  general  usage  in  computing  the  Paschal  time  ; 
that  they  should  use  the  Homan  rite  in  Baptism  ; and  that 
they  should  help  to  convert  the  Saxons.  In  his  disappoint- 
ment, Augustine  exclaimed,  “ Know  then,  that  if  you  will 
not  assist  me  in  pointing  out  to  the  Saxons  the  way  of  life, 
they,  by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  will  prove  to  you  the 
ministers  of  death/’  The  prophecy  was  fulfilled  eight  years 
after  the  death  of  the  saint,  when,  in  613,  the  Pagan  Edelfrid, 
king  of  Northumbria,  attacked  the  British  near  the  city  of 
Chester.  Before  the  onslaught  of  the  Saxons,  more  than 
twelve  hundred  monks  from  the  establishment  at  Bangor 
proceeded  to  the  top  of  a neighboring  hill,  that  they  might, 
Moses-like,  pray  for  God’s  blessing  on  the  arms  of  their 
countrymen.  Observing  this  movement,  and  devining  its 
object,  Edelfrid  cried  to  his  followers  to  attack  the  unfor- 
tunate brethren,  “ for,”  said  he,  “ those  who  pray  against  us, 
fight  against  us.”  A British  detachment  under  Brocmail, 
which  had  been  ordered  to  defend  the  hill,  disgracefully 
fled,  leaving  the  monks  to  their  fate.  Only  fifty  re-entered 
their  monastery.  This  melancholy  event  has  been  a rich 
morsel  to  certain  moderns  of  the  reformed  persuasion,  who, 
greedily  swallowing  the  assertions  of  the  fabulist  Geoffrey  of 
Monmouth  (2),  ascribe  the  massacre  of  the  monks  of  Bangor 
to  the  revengeful  intrigues  of  the  Roman  missionary  (3). 
But  Bede  expressly  declares  that  the  battle  of  Chester  took 
place,  “ Augustine  having  been,  a long  time  before,  trans- 

(1)  Bede  ; b.  2,  c.  2. 

(2)  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  (1100-1154).  bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  was  author  of  a Chronicle  of  the 
Britons,  professedly  a translation  of  an  older  Welsh  work,  but  so  filled  with  legend  as  to 
possess  little  historical  value.  Geoffrey's  prime  object  was  the  exaltation  of  his  British  anoea* 
tore  at  the  expense  of  their  conquerors'  reputation ; hence  the  above  assertion. 

(8)  Bale;  Cent.  13,  c.  1.  Parker;  p.  48.  Godwin,  p.  83. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


418 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ferred  to  the  heavenly  kingdom  and  he  assigns  as  a reason 
of  the  massacre,  the  appearance  of  the  monks  on  the  battle- 
field. Godwin  tries  to  evade  this  testimony  of  Bede,  by  as- 
serting that  the  passage  must  be  an  interpolation,  siuce  it 
is  not  found  in  king  Alfred's  Saxon  version  of  the  historian. 
But  it  is  found  in  all  the  Latin  MSS.,  even  in  that  of  More(l)  9 
written  within  two  years  from  the  death  of  Bede.  Again, 
Godwin  forgets  that  the  version  of  Alfred  is  more  of  a synop- 
sis than  a translation,  for  the  royal  scholar  often  omits  en- 
tire passages,  and  nearly  always  abridges  the  text.  In  the 
very  place  in  discussion,  he  omits  the  flight  of  Brocmail,  and 
the  date  of  ordination  of  Justus  and  Mellitus. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  ancient  British  church  had 
never  recognized  the  supremacy  of  Rome,  and  that  it  refused 
to  receive  from  St.  Augustine  the  “new  dogmas”  of  saint- 
worship,  purgatory,  confession,  &c.  As  for  Roman  suprem- 
acy, Bede,  Gildas,  and  other  authors,  furnish  many  proofs 
of  its  having  been  acknowledged  by  the  Britons.  It  was  to 
Pope  Eleutherius  that  king  Lucius  (y.  182)  applied  for  the 
means  of  instruction  for  his  people.  In  the  year  429,  when 
St.  Germain  of  Auxerre  and  St.  Lupus  of  Troyes  passed  in- 
to Britain  to  combat  Pelagianism,  the  former  was  legate  of 
Pope  Coelestine.  According  to  Gildas,  the  communion  of 
the  Britons  with  the  Roman  See  had  never  been  broken, 
which  certainly  shows  that  the  head  of  that  See  was 
obeyed  as  the  chief  pastor  of  the  Church.  As  for  the  “ new 
dogmas,”  Bede  informs  us  that  the  Britons  admitted  the 
orthodoxy  of  St.  Augustine's  doctrines,  and  both  he  and 
Gildas  declare  that,  from  the  time  of  their  conversion  to 
the  days  of  the  Roman  missionary, their  faith  had  never  been 
corrupted,  unless,  temporarily,  by  Arianism  and  Pelagian- 
ism. 

(1)  Linoakd  ; Antiquities,  c.  S. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 


THE  MONOTHELITIC  HERESY,  AND  THE  SIXTH  GENERAL  COUNOILr 

The  events  of  which  we  are  now  about  to  treat  are  of  the  ut- 
most interest  to  the  student,  for  they  gave  rise  to  a most 
important  controversy,  viz.,  that  regarding  the  alleged  heresy 
of  Pope  Honorius.  We  shall  consider  this  question  in  a 
special  chapter,  but  before  entering  upon  it,  it  is  necessary 
to  sketch  the  nature  of  the  heresy  which  was  its  occasion, 
and  to  speak  of  the  Council  which  condemned  that  heresy. 
The  prime  error  of  the  Monothelites  was  the  assertion  that 
in  Christ  there  is  but  one  operation,  and  one  will.  They 
held  that  human  nature  was  so  united  to  the  Word,  that, 
although  it  was  endowed  with  a mind  and  the  faculties  be- 
longing to  itself,  yet  it  did  not  exercise  its  own  action  ; 
action  in  Christ  was  one,  proceeding  from  the  Word  as  from 
a principal  cause,  and  from  the  humanity  as  from  an  instru- 
mental cause.  This  heresy,  as  Petau  remarks  (1),  was  a 
progeny  of  Eutychianism,  that  is,  of  the  defenders  of  one 
Nature  in  Christ.  Cyrus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Monothelites,  says  that  Christ  “operates 
with  one  tkeandric  operation  those  things  which  belong  to 
God,  and  those  which  are  human.”  Macarius,  bishop  of 
Antioch,  another  leader,  in  a long  Profession  of  Faith  read 
in  the  Sixth  Council,  says,  “ Christ  did  not  perform  divine 
things  as  God,  nor  human  things  as  man,  but  God  being 
made  man,  showed  a certain  new  theandric  operation,”  and 
he  asserted  the  same  of  Christ’s  will.  Contrary  to  this, 
the  Church  taught  that  in  Christ  there  are  two  natural 
wills,  and  two  natural  operations,  undivided,  inconver- 
tible, inseparable,  and  unconfused. 

As  Alexandre  justly  observes,  the  emperor  Heraclius- 
(d.  641)  acted  as  accoucheur  at  the  birth  of  the  Monotheli- 
tic  heresy,  first,  by  his  decrees  against  the  Severian  heretic* 

(1)  Dogmas , bvl,  c.  20. 

419 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


420 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Paul  of  Armenia,  to  whom  Sergius  alludes  in  his  epistle  to 
Honorius,  read  in  the  16th  Action  of  the  Sixth  Council  5 
again,  when  he  was  deceived  by  the  Jacobite  patriarch, 
Athanasius,  into  sympathy  for  the  new  doctrine.  The  real 
parent  of  the  heresy  was  Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople. Politics  too  had  their  share  in  its  propagation,  for 
Heraclius  was  greatly  influenced  in  its  favor  by  his  hatred 
of  Chosroes,  the  Persian  king,  who  patronized  the  Nesto- 
rians  ; hence  it  was  that  the  emperor  leaned  towards  the 
Euty chians,  natural  foes  of  Nestorianism,not  that  he  believed 
in  the  doctrine  of  one  Nature,  which  had  been  condemned 
at  Chalcedon,  but  because  he  did  not  perceive  the  equal 
danger  of  asserting  one  operation  and  will,  and  he  thought 
that  he  might  thus  bring  the  Monopliysites  back  to  the  fold. 
The  first  sign  of  the  coming  heresy  was  observed  when, 
having  talked  with  the  Severian  Paul,  Heraclius  issued  an 
order,  styled  Jussio,  against  him,  prohibiting  the  assertion 
of  a double  operation  in  Christ.  In  the  year  633,  Cyrus  of 
Alexandria  held  a Synod,  ostensibly  for  the  conversion  of 
the  Eutychians,  and  he  there  issued  nine  chapters,  the 
seventh  of  which  asserted  that,  according  to  St.  Dionysius, 
Christ  operated  both  divine  and  human  things,  by  one  tliean- 
dric  operation.  He  had  corrupted  the  text  of  his  holy 
predecessor,  inserting  one  where  Dionysius  had  said  a new 
theandric  operation.  These  chapters  Cyrus  sent  to  Sergius, 
who  congratulated  him  upon  them,  and  asserted  the  same 
doctrine,  “ because  every  divine  and  human  operation  pro- 
ceeded from  one  and  the  same  God,  the  Incarnate  Word/’ 
At  this  time,  there  lived  at  Alexandria  a holy  and  learned 
monk  named  Sophronius,  'who  in  vain  endeavored  to  influ- 
ence Cyrus  to  abrogate  his  chapters,  but  when  he  had  be- 
• come  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  Sophronius  held  a Synod  of  the 
bishops  of  Palestine,  and  sent  out  a Synodical  letter  in 
"which  he  plainly  asserted  the  doctrine  of  two  operations. 
When  Sergius  received  this  letter  of  Sophronius,  he  de- 
vised a means  for  preserving,  yet  so  as  to  hide,  his  error. 
He  sent  to  Pope  Honorius  the  letter  which  was  afterwards 
read  in  the  twelfth  Action  of  the  Sixth  Council,  and  in  which 
he  suggested  that  neither  of  the  words  “one”  or  “two” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  MONOTHEISTIC  HERESY. 


421 


should  be  used  in  regard  to  Christ’s  operations,  as  they  gave 
so  much  scandal  to  the  simple,  but  that  it  should  be  said  that 
the  one  only  Son  of  God  operated  both  divine  and  human 
things.  Honorius  answered  Sergius,  praising  him  for  try- 
ing to  avoid  the  scandal  of  simple  souls,  and  concluding  in 
these  words:  “Let  your  Fraternity  teach  with  us  these 

things,  as  we  with  one  mind  teach  with  you,  exhorting  you, 
that  abandoning  the  new  words  “one  '*  or  “ two  operations,** 
you  teach  with  orthodox  faith  and  Catholic  unity  that  the 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Son  of  the  Living  God,  True  God  in 
two  Natures,  operated  both  divinely  and  humanly.’*  In  an- 
other epistle  to  Sergius,  Honorius  decreed  that,  “ the  lately 
introduced  use  of  the  words  ‘ one  or  two  operations’  should 
be  left  out  in  teaching,  because  it  is  unsuitable  to  think  or 
to  explain  whether  the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  or  was  of  one  or  two  operations.” 
This  letter  has  caused  some  to  hold  that  Pope  Honorius 
erred  in  faith  ; others  have  condemned  him  for  allowing 
silence  where  silence  was  culpable.  We  shall  treat  the 
question  in  the  next  chapter.  Pope  Honorius  died  in  Octo- 
ber, 638 ; his  successor  was  Severinus.  About  the  end 
otthe  year  638,  Sergius  composed  a decree  for  Heraclius, 
called  an  Ecthesis  or  “Exposition,”  which  was  issued  in  the 
name  of  the  emperor.  In  this  document  the  ostensible 
object  is  to  command  all  to  refrain  from  using  the  words 
“ one  ” or  “ two  operations,”  but,  in  parenthesis,  as  it  were, 
the  one  will  and  one  operation  in  Christ  are  asserted.  When 
the  new  Pontiff  sent,  according  to  custom,  his  legates  to 
Constantinople,  to  acquaint  the  emperor  of  his  election,  the 
Monothelites  endeavored  to  impede  his  recognition  by 
Heraclius,  until  he  would  promise  to  approve  of  the  Sergico- 
imperial  Exposition.  The  document  was  accordingly  sent 
to  the  Exarch  of  Ravenna,  with  orders  to  obtain  the  Ponti- 
fical assent.  That  Severinus  refused,  we  learn  from  Pope 
Martin  I.,  in  the  Lateran  Synod  of  649.  We  gather  the 
same  from  the  Diurnal  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs , which  con- 
tains the  Profession  of  Faith  which,  before  the  Sixth  Coun- 
cil, a new  Pope  was  obliged  to  make  : “We  promise  also 

to  observe  all  the  decrees  of  the  Pontiffs  of  the  Apostolio 


Digitized  by 


Google 


422 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


See,  that  is,  of  Severinus , of  John,  of  Theodore,  and  of  Mar- 
tin, against  the  new  questions  arisen  in  the  imperial  city, 
professing,  according  to  the  movement  of  the  two  Natures, 
so  there  are  two  natural  operations  ; and  whatever  they 
have  condemned,  we  condemn  under  anathema”  (1).  In  the 
year  639,  Sergius  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  Pyrrhus,  a 
monk  and  a steady  Monothelite,  who  immediately  ap- 
proved of  the  Exposition.  At  the  same  time  the  Holy  See 
received  a new  Pontiff  in  the  person  of  John  IV.  One  of 
his  first  acts  was  the  condemnation  of  Monothelitism  and  of 
the  Exposition,  but  without  mentioning  any  persons.  When 
Heraclius  heard  of  this  condemnation,  he  wrote  to  the  Pope, 
protesting  that  the  Exposition  was  a production  of  the  late 
Sergius,  and  that  he  now  renounced  all  connection  with  it 
In  the  meantime,  Pyrrhus  had  fled  for  his  life  from  Con- 
stantinople, having  been  attacked  by  the  enraged  populace 
on  account  of  being  suspected  of  having  conspired  with  the 
empress  Martina  against  the  life  of  Heraclius  and  his  eldest 
son  Constantine.  The  new  emperor,  Constans,  put  into  his- 
place  another  Monothelite  named  Paul,  who  immediately 
wrote  such  a specious  letter  to  Pope  Theodore,  successor 
to  John  IV.,  that  the  Pontiff  congratulated  him  on  his  or- 
thodoxy. However,  some  time  afterwards,  being  hard 
pressed  by  the  Pope's  legate  to  send  an  explicit  Profession 
of  Faith  to  Rome,  he  wrote  in  such  terms  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  his  heterodoxy.  The  fugitive  Pyrrhus  had  spent 
his  exile  in  Africa,  and  occupied  his  time  in  sowing  the  seed 
of  Monothelitism ; but  being  defeated  in  dispute  by  the  Abbot 
Maximus  in  full  Synod,  he  acknowledged  his  error,  ascribed  it 
to  ignorance,  and  set  out  for  Rome  with  the  victor.  Hero 
he  abjured  his  heresy  at  the  feet  of  Pope  Theodore,  as  we 
learn  from  Theophanes  and  Anastasius.  But  he  soon  re- 
lapsed, and  showed  that  he  had  played  the  hypocrite  to 
secure  the  Papal  influence  in  regaining  his  see.  In  the 
meantime,  the  intruding  patriarch  Paul,  being  threatened 
with  excommunication,  tried  to  save  his  position  by  sug- 
gesting to  the  emperor  Constans  an  edict,  in  which  silence 

(1)  From  this  document,  Pa#  concludes,  and  with  some  reason,  that  8everinus  condemned 
the  Monothelites  in  a Synod.  At  that  time,  the  Pontiffs  were  accustomed  to  Issue  their 
decree?  synndically. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


THE  MON OTHELITIC  HERESY. 


423 


was  enjoined  as  to  the  number  of  operations  and  wills  in 
Christ,  but  in  which,  to  blind  the  Catholics,  certain  Monothel- 
itic  placards,  affixed  to  the  doors  of  the  cathedral,  were  order- 
ed to  be  torn  down.  Silence,  he  thought,  as  to  the  number  of 
operations,  would  ensure  a victory  to  his  heresy.  This  in- 
strument, which  was  called  a “ Type,"  was  promulgated  in 
648,  and  had  the  fate  ol  Zeno  s Henottcon,  and  almost  all  im- 
perial theological  essays.  It  pleased  neither  Catholics  nor 
heretics,  and,  if  it  was  not  condemned  by  Pope  Theodore  at 
the  same  time  that  he  condemned  Pyrrhus,  it  was  certainly 
branded  by  Martin  I.  in  G49.  That  we  may  at  once  be  dis- 
burdened of  the  two  worthies,  Pyrrhus  and  Paul,  we  will 
state  that  both  were  excommunicated  by  Pope  Theodore; 
that  on  the  death  of  Pau.(l),  Pyrrhus  regained  the  patriarch- 
ate of  Constantinople  by  the  favor  of  Coustans,  and  died  a 
Monothelite.  Pope  Martin  I.  commenced  his  reign  in  649, 
and  was  immediately  confronted  by  Constans  with  a demand 
for  the  approbation  of  iho  Tyf>e.  The  Pontiff  s answer  was 
the  call  of  a Synod  of  105  bishops,  and  the  condemnation  of 
Mouothelitism  and  its  professors,  and  that  of  the  Exposition 
ofHeraclius,  and  the  l'yf>eol  Constans  himself.  The  re- 
ward of  the  Pontiff's  firmness  was  the  crown  of  martyrdom. 
Taken  prisoner  in  Home,  he  was  first  exiled  to  Naxos,  then 
-thrown  into  a dungeon  at  Constantinople,  and  finally  trans- 
ported to  the  Chersonese,  where  he  succumbed  to  torture 
and  disease  in  the  year  655. 

During  the  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Constans,  things 
prospered  with  the  Monotlielites,  but  with  the  advent  of 
Constantine  Pogonatns,  came  a change.  Having  beaten  back 
the  Saracens,  made  peace  with  the  Bulgarians,  and  other- 
wise ameliorated  tie-  temporal  condition  of  the  empire,  this 
sovereign,  like  a tru  Byzantine  monarch,  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  the  arrange  UK  *at  of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  But  for- 
tunately he  was  sim  erely  desirous  of  unity,  and,  for  once, 
such  meddling  was  productive  of  unmitigated  good.  Inquir- 
ing of  Theodore  of  < o .stantinople  and  of  Macarius  of  Antioch 

(1)  While  Paul  was  dying,  rope  Murtiu  was  being  draggl'd  in  cl'a'ns  through  the  street 
by  the  public  executioner,  m k1  w.  expecting  sentence  of  death.  Constans  visited  Paul, 
and  tola  him  the  Mute  of  “’.i , enemy."  Stricken  with  remorse,  the  heresiarch  besought  the 
•emperor  to  spare  the  life  "or  so  good  a Pontiff.  This  ffjs  up  tne  measure  of  my  iniquities." 
tipint.  of  Atiaaiuttiutf  to  the  a sterns. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


424 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


what  was  the  real  cause  of  dissension,  he  was  told  that  certain 
new  words  had  been  introduced,  either  ignorantly  or  rashly, 
into  theological  terminology,  and  that  the  innovation  had 
produced  a dangerous  schism.  Constantine  then  sent  his 
secretary  to  Rome,  asking  Pope  Donus  to  send  his  legates 
to  Constantinople,  and  also  to  forward  all  books  and  docu- 
ments which  would  be  useful  in  settling  the  dispute.  In 
the  meantime,  he  called  a General  Council.  The  letters  of 
Constantine  were  received  by  Pope  Agatho,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded Donus  in  the  Holy  See.  This  Pontiff,  in  the  year 
680,  sent  as  legates  to  the  Council  the  priests  Theodore  and 
George,  and  the  deacon  John.  In  the  previous  year  he  had 
caused  various  Synods  to  be  celebrated  in  the  principal 
churches  of  the  West,  as  preparatory  to  the  great  Council. 
The  most  important  of  these  were  held  at  Rome,  at  Milany 
at  Arles,  and  in  England ; and  in  all,  Monothelitism  was 
condemned.  The  Sixth  General  Council,  called  Third  of 
Constantinople,  was  opened  on  Nov.  7.  The  number  of  bishops 
is  not  certain,  for  while  Theophanes  and  Cedrenus  make  it 
289,  the  last  Action  was  subscribed  by  only  166.  During 
the  first  eleven  Actions,  and  the  last,  the  emperor  was  present, 
but  only  as  the  Defender  of  the  Faith  and  a preserver  of 
order  (1).  That  Pogonatus  attempted  nothing  unbecoming 
a layman,  is  evident  from  his  own  words,  thus  recorded  by 
Pope  Gregory  II.  (2):  “Nor  shall  I sit  with  them  as  an  em- 
peror (literally,  “as  a commander”),  nor  shall  I speak  im- 
periously ; but,  like  one  of  themselves,  I shall  execute  what 
the  bishops  order.  Those  who  speak  properly,  we  shall 
admit ; those  who  talk  badly,  we  shall  expel,  and  send  into 
exile.  If  my  father  should  in  any  way  pervert  the  pure  and 
inviolable  faith,  I would  be  the  first  to  anathematize  him.’’ 
His  signature  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  comes  after 
those  of  the  bishops,  and  whereas  each  bishop  signs:  “I, 
bishop  of  ...  . defining,  have  subscribed,”  Pogonatus  uses 
the  phrase:  “We,  Constantine,  in  Christ  God,  King  and 
Emperor  of  the  Romans,  have  read  and  consented.”  Because 

(1)  With  regard  to  the  convocation  and  presidency  of  the  Sixth  Council,  the  reader  may 
apply,  mutatis  mutauilis,  what  we  have  said,  regarding  such  matters,  when  treating  of 
previous  Councils.  See  Alexander's  ZXxs.  in  7th  Cent.,  with  Roncaglla's  comments. 

<*>  EpUft.  to  Leo  the  Isaurian . 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


THE  MON OTHELITIC  HERESY. 


425 


we  sometimes  read  that  the  emperors  “ presided”  at  Councils, 
we  must  not  understand  that  they  occupied  any  other  than 
an  honorary  position.  In  the  Actions  of  the  Seventh  Coun- 
cil, we  read  that  the  empress  Irene  “ presided.” 

The  following  is  a summary  of  the  Actions  of  the  Sixth 
Council : In  the  1st  Action , the  Papal  legates  announced  the 
object  of  the  Council  to  be  the  refutation  of  the  heresies  in- 
troduced into  the  Church  by  the  later  patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople. Macarius  of  Antioch  replied  that  the  doctrines 
enumerated  were  not  new,  but  taken  from  the  fathers  and 
from  definitions  of  the  Councils.  Codices  of  the  Five  Gen- 
eral Councils ,were  then  introduced  and  consulted.  The  first 
Action  of  Ephesus  was  read,  because  Macarius  asserted  that 
in  it  was  taught  the  doctrine  of  one  will  in  Christ ; he  was- 
found  in  error.  In  the  2nd  Action , the  Acts  of  Chalcedon 
were  read,  and  Macarius  was  refuted  by  Pope  St.  Leo’s* 
Dogmatic  Epistle.  In  the  3rd  Action , when  the  Acts  of  the 
Fifth  Council  were  read,  a dispute  arose  as  to  an  epistle  of 
Mennas  of  Constantinople  to  Pope  Yigilius,  in  which  one 
will  was  asserted.  The  Papal  legates  declared  the  letter  not 
authentic,  and  when  a comparison  of  codices  was  made,  and 
the  different  ones  found  to  vary,  the  document  was  excluded. 
Then  were  read  some  letters  of  Yigilius  to  Justinian  and  the 
empress  Theodora,  and  the  legates  cried  out,  “ God  forbid ! ” 
“ Vigilius  never  asserted  one  operation,”  “ This  book  lia& 
been  falsified.”  The  fathers  then  ordered  the  corrupted 
passages  to  be  suppressed,  although  they  anathematized  the 
book  as  presented  (1).  In  the  4th  Action , was  read  the 
Dogmatic  Epistle  of  Pope  Agatho  to  the  Council,  in  which  tha 
Pontiff  declares  that  “ The  Apostolic  Roman  Church  has 
never  turned  from  the  way  of  truth  into  any  path  of  error 
whatever,”  and  asserts  the  Catholic  dogma  as  to  the  two 
wills  and  operations  in  Christ.  In  the  5th  and  6th  Actions,  the 
emperor  urged  Macarius  to  put  forth  such  testimonies  of  the 


(1)  Judging  from  the  controversy  agitated  in  677,  between  Theodore  of  Constantinople  and 
Macarius,  and  from  the  Greek  codex,  it  would  seem  that  the  legates  used  an  imperfect  copy. 
However,  the  legates  were  forced  to  interfere,  because,  says  Baronio,  when  the  reader  came 
to  the  anathema  against  Th*>odore  of  Mojwueste,  launched  because  he  did  not  avow  one 
Person  in  Christ,  it  was  found  that  a falsifier’s  hand  had  added,  “and  one  operation.”  As 
for  the  anathenuu-izatlou  of  Vigilius’  book,  see  the  14th  Action. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


426 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


fathers  as  he  believed  to  warrant  the  assertion  of  only  one 
will  in  Christ.  He  did  so,  but  the  legates  insisted  that  the 
quoted  passages  applied  only  to  the  divine  will.  The  7th 
Action  was  taken  up  by  the  recitation  of  testimonies  of  the 
fathers  proving  that  there  were  two  wills  and  operations  in 
Christ.  The  emperor  then  demanded  of  the  Constantinopol- 
itan  and  Antiochian  patriarchs  whether  they  consented  to  the 
definition  of  Pope  Agatho ; they  requested  a copy  of  the 
definition,  and  time  for  consideration.  In  the  8th  A lion , 
arrived  the  crucial  moment  for  the  Monothelites.  When 
George  of  Constantinople  was  asked  for  his  final  decision, 
he  declared  that  he  accepted  the  definition  of  Popo  Agatho, 
and  all  of  his  suffragans  made  the  same  submission.  Then 
from  the  episcopal  benches  arose  the  acclamation,  4 Many 
years  to  George,  the  orthodox  patriarch!  * The  fathers 
then  proceeded  to  the  examination  of  Macarius  of  Antioch. 
After  some  tergiversation  on  his  pari  he  was  ordered  to 
categorically  answer  whether  he  admitted  two  natural  wills 
and  two  natural  operations  in  Christ,  and  he  answered  that 
he  would  not  admit  them,  44  even  if  he  were  cut  limb  from 
limb,  and  thrown  into  the  sea.”  Strange  to  say,  he  coupled 
his  firmness  with  an  admission  that  he  had  corrupted  and 
twisted  the  sayings  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  in  order 
to  prop  up  his  tottering  heresy.  When  the  bishops  heard 
this  shameless  avowal,  they  exclaimed,  ‘4It  does  not  become 
the  orthodox  to  mutilate  the  sayings  of  the  fathera;  that  is 
fit  for  heretics.”  Finally,  from  all  sides  burst  forth  the  cries 
of  “ He  has  shown  himself  a heretic.  Anathema  to  the  new 
Dioscorus.  Evil  years  to  the  new  Apollinarius.  Let  him 
be  stripped  of  the  Pallium  ! ” In  the  9th  Action , Macarius 
was  deposed  from  his  patriarchate  ; the  bishops  and  priests 
who  abjured  Monothelitism  were  forgiven,  on  condition  that 
they  submitted  to  the  Council  a sworn  Profession  of  Faith. 
Most  of  the  following  Actions  are  of  minor  importance,  with 
the  exception  of  those  in  which  occur  the  anathemas  to 
Pope  Honorius,  and  they  will  be  quoted  when  we  examine 
the  alleged  heresy  of  that  Pontiff.  The  14th  Action,  how- 
ever, is  worthy  of  mention.  In  it  were  read  the  books  of 
Mennas  to  Vigilius,  and  of  Vigilius  to  Justinian  and 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


THE  MONOTHELITIC  HERESY. 


427 


Theodora.  All  the  bishops  pronounced  them  suppositi- 
tious, or  corrupted  by  the  Monothelites.  Hence  they  ex- 
claimed, “ Anathema  to  the  books  which  are  said  to  have 
been  sent  by  Vigilius  to  Justinian  and  Theodora,  and  which 
have  been  proven  false.  ’ Iu  the  17th  and  18th  Actions , was 
promulgated  the  Definition  of  Faith,  and  anathema  pro 
nnunced  on  all  who  taught  one  will  and  one  operation  in 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  assembled  prelates  sent  a Synodical  Letter  to  Pope 
Agatho,  requesting  his  confirmation  of  their  decrees.  “We 
have  manifested  with  you,*’  they  say,  ‘ the  resplendent 
light  of  the  orthodox  faith  ; wherefore  we  pray  your  pater- 
nal Holiness  to  confirm  our  action  by  your  honorable  re- 
scripts.” But  news  of  the  death  of  Pope  Agatho  and  of 
the  election  of  Leo  II.  having  come  to  Constantinople,  the 
emperor  gave  the  returning  legates  letters  to  the  new  Pon- 
tiff, also  asking  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Council.  Pope 
Leo  conceded  the  confirmation,  in  a letter  to  Pogonatus, 
saying:  “And  because  the  Holy  Synod  issued  a Definition 
of  the  true  faith,  the  same  as  that  reverently  held  by  the 
Apostolic  See  of  Blessed  Peter  the  Apostle,  whose  office, 
although  unworthy,  we  fill ; therefore,  we,  and  through  us, 
this  venerable  Apostolic  See,  concordantly  and  unanimous- 
ly consent  to  and  confirm  it,  by  the  authority  of  Blessed 
Peter,  that  its  teaching  may  acquire  firmness  from  the  Lord 
Himself  upon  the  solid  Rock,  which  is  Christ.  Wherefore, 
just  as  we  receive  and  preach  the  five  General  Councils  of 
Nice,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  and  Constanti- 
nople (II.),  which  all  the  churches  of  Christ  approve  and 
follow,  so  we  receive  with  equal  veneration,  as  following  in 
their  footsteps,  and  as  their  interpreter,  the  Holy  Sixth 
Council  lately  held  in  the  imperial  city  under  the  pious 
auspices  of  your  Serenity  ; and  we  declare  it  worthily  num- 
bered with  them,  as  congregated  by  one  and  the  same  grace 
of  God;  and  we  decree  that. those  priests  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  who  faithfully  assembled  in  it,  are  to  be  numbered 
among  the  holy  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church.” 

Thirty  years  after  the  celebration  of  the  Sixth  Council, 
the  emperor  Philippicus  Bardanes,  led  by  the  predictions 


Digitized  by 


Google 


428 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  a Monothelite  astrologer,  undertook  to  infuse  new  life  in* 
to  the  dying  heresy,  and  during  the  two  years  of  his  reign, 
the  orthodox  had  much  to  suffer.  But  Monothelitism  soon 
ceased  to  subsist  as  a separate  heresy,  its  followers  incor- 
porating themselves  with  their  cousins,  the  Eutychians  (1). 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Apts  of  the  Sixth  Council 
were  vitiated  by  the  Monothelites.  If  we  could  receive  that 
opinion,  the  defence  of  Pope  Honorius,  which  we  shall 
undertake  in  the  next  chapter,  would  certainly  be  much  sim- 
plified, for  by  far  the  strongest  argument  against  his  ortho- 
doxy is  deduced  from  the  anathema  pronounced  against  him, 
according  to  these  Acts , by  the  fathers  of  the  Council  How- 
ever, the  weight  of  evidence  is  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Acts  as  they  have  come  down  to  us.  It  is  certain  that  the 
Acts  which  we  possess  are  the  same  that  the  Papal  legates 
brought  from  Constantinople,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  Monothelites  would  have  been  able  to  palm  off  vitiated 
copies  upon  the  legates.  Supposing,  which  is  not  at  all  likely, 
that  the  legates  would  have  received  the  copies  destined  for 
the  Holy  See  from  the  hands  of  heretics,  the  error  would 
have  surely  been  discovered  upon  their  arrival  at  Rome,  un- 
less we  believe  that  they  were  asleep  during  that  important 
moment  when  the  Council  was  anathematizing  the  Mono- 
thelites and  all  who  aided  them.  And  it  would  be  some- 
thing unique  in  the  annals  of  falsification  of  codices,  which 
annals  are  quite  extensive,  if  the  Monothelites  were  so 
lucky  as  to  see  their  work  alone  survive,  and  the  Catholics 
so  unfortunate  as  to  possess  not  even  one  codex  of  the 
genuine  Acts.  Again,  we  learn  from  the  letters  which  Pope 
Leo  II.  sent  to  Constantine  Pogonatus,  to  the  Spanish  king 
Ervigius,  and  to  the  bishops  of  Spain,  that  this  Pontiff  was 
fully  persuaded  that  Honorius  had  been  condemned  by  the 
Sixth  Council.  The  Seventh  Geneial  Council  manifested 
the  same  belief.  In  the  Eighth  Council  was  read  an  allocu- 
tion delivered  by  Pope  Adrian  II.  to  a Roman  Synod,  and 
in  that  document  the  Pontiff  affirmed  that  the  Holy  See 

(1)  Moshelm  and  other  more  recent  writers  have  contended  that  when  Monothelitism  was 
banished  from  Constantinople,  it  found  a home  among  the  fastnesses  of  Mount  Lebanon, 
and  seduced  the  heroic  Maronites  from  the  faith  of  Rome.  Mosheim  even  asserts  that  St. 
Maro  himself  was  a Monothelite.  For  a refutation  of  Mosheim  in  this  matter,  see  Palma; 
Lectures,  chap.  70,  Cent.  7. 


Digitized  by  v^oooie 


429 


THE  MONOTHELEWC  HEREBY. 

had  consented  to  what  was  done  against  Honorius  in  the 
Sixth  Council.  Baronio  is  convinced  that  the  Ads  were 
vitiated,  and  he  names  the  culprit,  the  patriarch  Theo- 
dore of  Constantinople.  According  to  the  great  annalist, 
Theodore  erased  his  own  name  from  among  those  of 
the  condemned,*  and  substituted  that  of  Honorius.  For, 
he  says,  in  the  Sixth  Council  all  the  Monothelite  patri- 
archs were  condemned  by  name  ; yet  that  of  Theo- 
dore does  not  occur.  We  know  he  was  a Monothelite, 
for  Anastasius  tells  us  (1)  that  Constantine  told  the  fathers 
of  the  Counc.l  that  Theodore  had  subscribed  to  the  Pro- 
fession of  Faith  issued  by  Macarius.  This  argument  ia 
specious,  but  it  seems  to  have  escaped  the  observation  of 
Baronio  that  the  Council  named  the  dead  patriarchs,  to 
condemn  the  heretical  ones,  and  to  put  the  names  of  the 
faithful  ones  in  the  diptychs.  But  it  did  not  name  the 
living , unless  they  had  shown  themselves  pertinacious  in 
heresy,  and  of  this  obstinacy  there  is  no  proof  in  the  case 
of  Theodore.  He  was  absent  from  the  Council,  Constan- 
tine having  expelled  him  from  his  see,  and  we  do  not  know 
that  he  was  cited  by  the  fathers.  The  assertion  of  Anas- 
tasius as  to  Theodore’s  subscription  to  the  doctrine  of 
Macarius  is  corroborated  by  no  other  authority,  and  even 
if  he  had  signed  it,  we  need  not  therefore  conclude  that  he 
should  have  been  condemned  by  name  in  the  Council.  He 
might  not  have  been  obstinate,  and  might  have  been  await- 
ing the  decision  of  a General  Council.  And  it  is  no  light 
argument  that  such  was  his  case,  that  he  was  afterwards- 
restored  to  his  see  by  the  same  anti-Monothelite  Constan- 
tine who  had  deposed  him,  and  that  the  restoration  was 
made  without  his  offering  a new  Profession  of  Faith. 
Finally,  Theodore  could  not  have  interpolated  the  Acts 
which  the  legates  brought  to  Rome.  The  legates  left  Con- 
stantinople a few  months  after  the  termination  of  the  Coun- 
cil, and  Theodore  was  not  called  from  exile  to  his  see  until 
the  death  of  the  intruder  George,  which  did  not  occur,  ac- 
cording to  Theophanes,  until  three  years  later. 

Before  we  close  this  chapter  on  the  Sixth  Council,  we 

fl)  Life  of  Agatho. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


430 


STUDIES  'IN  - CHURCH  HISTORY. 


would  »ay  a few  words  as  to  & conclusion  drawn  from  its 
Acts  by  Bossuet  (1),  in  support  of  the  tiallican  theory  of 
the  supremacy  of  a General  Council  over  the  Homan  Pontiff. 
The  Sixth  Council  formally  condemned  the  Monothelites, 
although  the  Popes  Martin  I.  and  Agatho  had  already 
launched  their  anathemas  against  them.  But  where  was 
the  necessity,  asks  the  bishop  of  Meaux,  of  a condemnation 
by  the  Council,  if  the  decision  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  was 
definitive?  Again,  the  Council  submitted  the  Dogmatic 
Epistle  of  Agatho  to  an  examination  ; therefore,  the  fathers 
claimed  the  right  to  judge  the  Pope.  And  the  very  anathema  - 
launched  against  Pope  Honorius  shows  that  the  Council 
regarded  the  Roman  Pontiff  as  subjected  to  its  jurisdiction. 

To  this  opinion  of  Bossuet,  we  first  oppose  the  epistle  of 
Agatho  to  Pogonatus,  which  was  read  in  the  4th  Action.  In 
it  the  Pontiff  declares  that  he  observes  all  that  was  defined 
by  his  predecessors  and  by  the  General  Councils,  and  that 
he  studies  “ that  of  those  things  which  have  been  regularly 
defined,  nothing  shall  be  diminished,  added,  or  changed, 
but  shall  be  preserved  intact,  both  in  word  and  meaning/* 

He  then  speaks  of  the  instructions  given  to  his  legates,  and 
says  that  “they  were  enjoined  not  to  presume  to  add  or 
change  anything  ; but  to  simply  narrate  the  tradition  of  this 
Apostolic  See,  as  it  has  been  established  by  the  preceding 
Apostolic  Pontiff/’  Had  the  Council  regarded  itself  as 
superior  to  the  Pope,  would  it  not  have  resented  such 
instructions?  But  Agatho  goes  on  to  explain  why  he  wishes 
nothing  to  be  changed  or  added  : “ Peter  received  the 

spiritual  sheep  of  the  Church  from  the  Redeemer  of  all,  with 
a triple  injunction  to  feed  them.  By  the  favor  of  his  pro- 
tection, this  Apostolic  Church  has  never  deviated  in  any 
way  from  the  path  of  truth;  and  the  whole  Catholic  Church 
of  Christ,  and  the  General  Councils,  have  followed  his 
authority  in  all  things,  as  that  of  the  Prince  of  all  the  Apos- 
tles.” Asserting,  therefore,  the  inerrability  of  his  See,  Agatho 
could  not  have  submitted  his  definitions  to  the  examination 
of  the  Council.  We  can  also  adduce  the  Synodical  Epistle 
sent  by  Agatho  and  the  Roman  Synod  to  the  Council.  In 

(1)  Defence  of  the  Declaration,  p.  2,  b.  12,  c.  24. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  MOXOTHELITIC  HERESY. 


431 


this  letter,  after  an  assertion  of  the  constant  free  Join  from 
error  enjoyed  by  the  Roman  See,  the  Pontiff  and  synodal 
fathers  say,  “This  is  onr  perfect  science,  that  with  our  whole 
mind  we  preserve  the  limits  of  that  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
faith  which  the  Apostolic  See  has  always  held  and  delivered 

you  are  not  to  dispute  about  uncertainties,  but  to 

proffer  certain  and  immutable  things  in  a compendious  de- 
finition   We  therefore  receive  as  concordant  with  our 

Apostolic  faith,  as  co-priests  and  co-ministers  of  the  samo 
faith,  as  spiritual  brethren  and  our  fellow  bishops,  all  those 
who  sincerely  wish  to  teach  what  is  contained  in  this  Pro- 
fession of  Faith  drawn  up  by  our  humility.  But  those  who 
will  not  acknowledge  these  things,  we  look  upon  as  enemies 
of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  faith,  and  guilty  of  perpetual 
condemnation ; and  unless  they  will  have  corrected  them- 
selves, we  shall  not  suffer  such  to  enter  the  society  of  our 
humility.”  Had  the  Sixth  Council  regarded  as  illegitimate 
the  claims  here  put  forth,  it  would  assuredly  have  protested 
against  them,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  acknowledged  the  su- 
preme authority  of  Pope  Agatho.  Writing  to  the  Pontiff, 
the  Council  ascribes  the  crushing  of  Monothelitism  to  his 
epistle,  and  acknowledges  the  letter  as  an  emanation  from 
the  prince  of  the  Apostles  : “We  regard  as  divinely  sent 

from  the  supreme  height  of  the  Apostles,  the  letter  sent  by 
your  Blessedness  to  the  most  pious  emperor,  through  which 
we  have  repressed  the  lately  arisen  heretical  sect  of  multifold 
error.”  And  in  its  letter  to  Pope  Leo,  successor  to  Agatho, 
the  Council  avows  its  obligation  to  obey  the  dictates  of  St. 
Peter  : “ We  have  looked  upon  the  Prince  of  the  Apostolic 

chair,  Peter,  the  bishop  of  the  first  See,  divinely  showing 
to  the  eyes  of  our  souls  the  mystery  of  the  whole  dispensa- 
tion   For  the  whole  Christ  was  described  in  those 

his  sacred  letters,  which  with  willing  minds  we  have  sincere- 
ly received,  and  as  though  they  were  Peter  himself,  have 
taken  to  the  embrace  of  our  souls.”  And  in  its  epistle  to  the ' 
emperor,  the  Council  says  of  the  epistle  of  Pope  Agatho  ; 
“ The  parchment  and  ink  were  seen,  and  through  Agatho 
Peter  spoke.”  As  for  the  examination  of  Agatho’s  epistle, 
which  Bossuet  contends  was  made  by  the  Council,  the  same 


Digitized  by 


Google 


432 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


reply  may  be  given  that  we  gave  to  a similar  objection  in  the 
cas3  of  the  epistle  of  St.  Leo  to  the  Council  cf  Chalcedon. 
An  inquisitorial  and  judicial  examination  is  one  thing,  an  in- 
vestigation for  the  sake  of  information  is  another;  the  latter, 
not  the  former,  was  undertaken  by  the  Council.  As  to  the 
condemnation  of  Monothelitis  in  by  the  Council,  even  after 
the  Pontifical  definitions,  there  was  no  superfluity  of  action 
in  such  a repetition.  It  wr*s  necessary  for  the  Council  to 
manifest  the  adhesion  of  the  Church  to  the  doctrine  taught 
by  the  Apostolic  See,  and  that  could  be  done  in  no  better 
way  than  by  a condemnation  of  the  heresy  in  question.  It 
was  proper  also  to  show  the  Monothelites,  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  possible,  that  the  whole  Church  was  against  them. 
The  anathema  launched  against  Pope  Honorius  does  not 
prove,  as  Bossuet  asserts,  that  the  Pontiff,  as  such,  was  sub- 
ject to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Council.  For,  as  we  shall 
show  in  the  next  chapter,  if  Honorius  erred,  he  did  so  as  a 
private  individual.  We  contend  that  he  did  not  err  at  all, 
and  the  absurdities  which  follow  from  the  supposition  that 
a Pdpe, even  as  a private  individual,  can  fall  into  heresy,  form 
a good  argument  for  those  who  believe  in  his  personal,  as 
well  as  official,  freedom  from  liability  to  error  in  matters  of 
faith.  We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  into  the  alleged 
heresy  of  Pope  Honorius,  and  among  the  errors  of  Bossuet 
and  his  school  in  this  matter,  it  will  be  seen  that  a place 
must  be  accorded  to  the  assertion  that  the  Sixth  Council  re- 
garded, and  anathematized,  Honorius  as  a heretic. 


CHAPTER  XXXV. 

THE  ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 

Of  the  few  illustrative  cases  adduced  by  the  opponents  of 
Papal  infallibility  to  support  their  theory,  two  stand  out  in 
bold  relief,  for  they  alone  merit  any  serious  attention.  Of 
these,  we  think  that  the  case  of  Pope  Liberius  affords  no  real 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONOBIUS. 


433 


difficulty  to  the  impartial  student,  but  we  must  admit  that 
the  case  of  Honorius  is  not  so  simple.  In  it,  we  have  to 
deal  with  letters  in  which  our  opponents  discover  doctrines 
manifestly  heretical ; we  hear  the  clear  voice  of  an  (Ecu- 
menical Council  anathematizing  the  Pontiff  in  the  same  breath 
that  it  draws  when  condemning  those  whom  we  willingly 
abjure.  Such  a case  is  not  to  be  hastily  treated.  It  has 
occupied  the  best  minds  of  the  two  schools,  into  which,  be- 
fore the  last  General  Council,  our  theologians  and  histor- 
ians were  divided.  Anything  new  bearing  upon  it  will  pro- 
bably never  be  discovered  ; every  document  has  been  thor- 
oughly criticized,  every  argument  well  ventilated,  every 
prejudice  analyzed.  To  Protestant  authors  the  cause  of 
Honorius  has  been  a mine  which  needed  little  delving  for 
the  extraction  of  its  treasures.  Most  attractive  was  the 
picture  of  a Roman  Pontiff  teaching  a doctrine  which  the 
veriest  tyro  in  theology  knows  to  be  anti-Catholic  ; yet  more 
entrancing  was  the  scene  in  which  was  heard  a General 
Council,  confirmed  by  a Pope,  and  therefore,  to  all  Catholics, 
infallible,  branding  as  a “heretic”  one  of  those  Heads  of  the 
Church  generally  regarded  as  themselves  infallible.  Ultra- 
montanes  and  Gallicans  alike  should  be  overwhelmed  by 
such  a fact,  and  it  was  well  developed.  Gallicanism  has 
now  passed  into  the  realms  of  history  ; the  Council  of  the 
Vatican  has  rendered  it  forever  a thing  of  the  past.  But, 
just  as  no  one  could  be  styled  a dogmatic  theologian,  if, 
though  knowing  what  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  he  were 
unable  to  prove  its  soundness,  so  no  one  will  be  well  versed 
in  the  meaning  of  history,  unless  he  connects  his  facts  with 
their  causes,  consequences,  and  correlatives — unless,  in  fact, 
he  is  able  to  reason  upon  them.  It  is  not  sufficient,  for  one 
who  wishes  to  converse  intelligently  upon  matters  of  Church 
history,  to  know  that  the  Church  teaches  that  no  Pope  can 
err  in  faith  ; he  must  be  able  to  prove  that  no  Pope  has 
ever  so  erred.  With  the  first  argument  he  will  convince 
his  own  brethren ; but  it  is  only  with  the  second,  furnished 
by  matter-of-fact  history,  that,  very  frequently,  he  will  con- 
vince an  outsider.  For  this  reason,  we  enter  upon  the  de- 
fence of  Pope  Honorius. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


434 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Of  the  many  Catholic  authors  who  have  defended  Hon- 
orius  from  the  charge  of  heresy,  we  may  first  cite  Cardinal 
Baronio.  His  theory  is  that  of  the  vitiation  of  the  Acte  of 
the  Sixth  Council.  If  that  idea  were  tenable,  our  case 
would  require  no  further  defence,  but,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  last  chapter,  the  Acte  must  be  accepted  as  authentic.- 
The  eminent  annalist  then  asserts  that  the  Sixth  Council 
declared  that  it  condemned  the  Monothelites  according  to 
the  tenor  of  the  sentence  of  Pope  Agatho  ; we  know,  however, 
that  Agatho  did  not  proscribe  Honorius.  Therefore,  con- 
cludes Baronio,  the  Synod  did  not  condemn  the  Pontiff. 
Unfortunately,  this  argument  must  also  be  excluded,  be- 
cause Agatho  only  mentioned  the  originators  of  the  heresy, 
while  the  Synod  went  further,  and,  to  say  nothing  of  Honor- 
ius, condemned  Macarius,  Stephen,  and  Polychronius.  The 
next  argument  of  Baronio  is  deduced  from  the  silence  of 
the  Papal  legates  while  a Roman  Pontiff  was  being  con- 
demned, and  it  would  mean  much  if  adduced  against  an  ad- 
versary holding  that  Honorius  was  anathematized  as  a for- 
mal heretic,  but  it  has  no  weight  with  one  who  acknowl- 
edges that  the  Pontiff  was  guilty  merely  of  false  prudence 
and  of  giving  comfort  to  a budding  heresy.  Again,  these 
particular  legates  might  have  been  culpably  silent  in  such 
an  emergency,  for  while  we  cannot  agree  with  Alexandre 
that  they  were  “idiots,”  yet  we  know  from  Agatho’s  epistle 
to  Pogonatus,  read  in  the  fourth  Action  of  the  Sixth  Coun- 
cil, that  the  Pope  excused  himself  for  sending  men  so  little 
versed  in  theological  lore,  pleading  as  a reason  the  dearth 
of  science  just  then  prevalent  in  Italy,  owing  to  the  terrible 
state  of  political  and  social  matters  (1). 

The  erudite  Jesuit  Gamier,  in  his  2nd  Dissertation  af- 
fixed to  his  edition  of  the  Diurnal  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs , de- 
fends Honorius  from  the  charge  of  heresy,  but  contends  that 
he  was  condemned  for  “imprudent  economy”  in  the  Mono- 
thelite  matter,  inasmuch  as  lie  wished  for  silence  as  to  the 
number  of  operations,  when  the  good  of  religion  de- 
manded that  the  two  operations  should  be  openly  de- 


<U  The  Pontiff  also  says  that  uis  iegaU  • arc  uui  u,  ar^m  . but  to  see  that 
already  condemned  by  Home,  be  cohuemued  uj  uie  council. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HERES*  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 


435 


fended.  Speaking  of  Baronio’s  theory,  Gamier  Says, 
*•  Baronio  satisfied  few  learned  men,  although  he  pious- 
ly brought  to  bear,  upon  what  he  believed  the  only 
possible  way  of  defending  Honorius,  the  entire  strength 
of  his  great  genius  and  learning/ * A great  number  of 
authors  lay  the  principal  stress  of  their  defence  upon  the 
fact  that  the  epistles  of  Honorius  were  private,  and  not  dog- 
matic. Their  views  are  well  expressed  in  an  anonymous 
work  cited  by  Alexandre  (1)  entitled  Gaul  Vindicated.  ‘‘  How- 
ever the  case  of  Honorius  may  be  regarded,’*  says  this  writ- 
er, “ it  is  certain  that  his  error,  if  any  there  were,  would 
not  injure  our  cause  ; for  who  does  not  know  that  the  let- 
ters of  Honorius  to  Pyrrhus  and  Sergius,  on  account  of 
which  he  is  accused  of  heresy,  were  private,  not  public  aud 
dogmatic,  and  that  in  them  Honorius  defined  nothing,  but 
simply  manifested  his  mind  and  private  opinion  ? That 
Popes  may  err  insuch  epistles,  I do  not  deny,  nor  does  itenter 
the  question  ; for  everything  done  or  said  by  a Pontiff  is  not 
an  oracle  or  above  human  frailty;  only  when  he  acts  as  Pon- 
tiff, or,  as  the  schools  put  it,  when  he  teaches  ex  cathedra. ..... 

The  letters  sent  by  Honorius  to  Sergius  were  private,  not 
addressed  to  the  faithful,  nor  do  they  decide  anything ; for 
although,  by  the  law  of  contraries,  there  should  be  or  not 
be  two  wills  and  two  operations  in  Christ,  yet  Honorius 
wishes  neither  view  to  be  asserted,  but  only  two  with  their 
own  operations,  which  surely  is  not  a decision,  but  a leav- 
ing the  question  unsettled.  However,  not  in  every  case, 
nor  in  every  writing,  do  we  proclaim  the  Pontiff  infallible  ^ 
but  only  when  he  acts  as  Pontiff  and  teacher  of  the  Church, 
that  is,  when  he  performs  some  act  which  pertains  to  a 
Pontiff  alone,  and  such  is  not  the  writing  or  answering  of  let- 
ters, for  that  is  permitted  to  every  bishop,  and  to  every 
private  person.  For  as  this  privilege  of  infallibility  is  meant 
for  the  public  good  of  the  Church,  God  wished  to  assign  it 
to  the  office,  not  to  the  person,  and  to  have  it  present,  only 
when  a Pontifical  duty  was  being  performed/5  The  reader 
will  find  in  Mamachi  (2)  a list  of  the  authors  who  have  treat- 

(1)  Seventh  Cent.,  dissert.  [.,  in  note  1. 

/2)  Origins  and  Antiquities,  tom.  6. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


436 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ed  all  sides  of  this  question,  We  shall,  however,  draw  his 
attention  to  Orsi  (1),  to  Thomassin  (2),  to  Alexandre  (3), 
and  to  Palma  s Lectures . The  pious  and  scholarly  Cardinal 
La  Luzerne  (4)  has  presented  the  Ga.lican  view  of  the  mat- 
ter in  his  usual  masterly  and  courteous  style,  and  as  that 
view  has  been  put  forth  by  no  one,  not  even  by  Bossuet, 
in  so  forcible  a way,  we  shall  take  occasion  to  notice  his 
objections.  The  opinion  of  Alexandre  is  presented  in  the 
propositions  that  Honorius  was  condemned  in  the  Sixth 
Council ; that  he  was  justly  condemned  as  an  “ author  of 
Monothelitism  that,  however,  he  can  be  “ truly  and  pious- 
ly” excused  of  heresy.  If  there  appears  to  be  a contradic- 
tion between  the  second  and  third  of  these  propositions,  it 
is  to  be  noted,  in  justice  to  Alexandre,  that  in  his  treatment 
of  the  second  proposition,  he  leans  to  the  theory  of  Gamier, 
And  does  not  follow  out  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  word 
“ author/* 

Proceeding  now  to  the  defence  of  Pope  Honorius  from 
the  charge  of  heresy,  we  must  first  observe  that  we  find  it 
difficult  to  account  for  the  energy  displayed  by  Gallican 
writers  in  this  matter.  Unlike  Protestants,  they  were  in 
no  position  of  rebellion  to  Church  authority,  were  actuat- 
ed by  no  hatred  to  the  Papacy,  and  hence  were  not  natural- 
ly led  to  attack  Rome  for  any  reason  or  for  no  reason.  What 
had  they  to  gain  ? Their  favorite  theory  of  the  fallibility  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff  could  not  be  strengthened  by  proving  the 
heresy  of  Honorius,  for  it  is  certain  that  the  epistles  to 
Sergius  and  Pyrrhus  were  private  and  not  dogmatic.  Un- 
less they  could  show  that  these  letters  were  sent  by 
the  Pontiff  as  dogmatic  teaching,  intended  for  the  whole 
Church  of  Christ,  their  labor  would  be  vain.  That 
the  letters  were  private,  we  now  proceed  to  show. 
And  in  the  first  place,  the  adversaries  of  Honorius  should 
bear  the  burden  of  producing  proof  in  this  matter,  not  we, 
for  when  a man  in  power  writes  a letter,  no  more  than  that 
of  any  other  person  is  it  presumed  to  be  official,  unless  it 
carries  with  itself  the  marks  of  official  character.  Thus, 

(1)  Authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff , p.  1,  b.  1.  (8)  As  above. 

(2)  Dissert.  32  on  Councils.  (4)  Declarat  ion  of  the  French  Clergy  in  1682,  p.  a,  c.17. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 


437 


when  an  absolute  monarch  issues  an  edict,  its  phraseology 
will  reveal  that  obedience  is  demanded ; when  a constitution- 
al sovereign  emits  a decree,  the  paper  is  countersigned  by 
the  minister  whose  department  it  concerns.  Now,  in  the 
letters  of  Honorius  and  in  the  circumstances  of  their  issu- 
ance, not  only  is  there  an  absence  of  any  indication  of  their 
being  official,  but  there  is  positive  evidence  of  their  private 
character  (1).  He  tells  Sergius,  “ that  no  one  should  pre- 
sume to  teach  one  or  two  operations  in  Christ,  when  neither 
Scriptural  nor  Apostolic  letters,  nor  a Synodical  examina- 
tion are  seen  to  have  determined  the  matter.”  Such  lan- 
guage could  not  be  used  by  a Pontiff,  if  he  were  teaching 
whether  or  not  there  were  two  operations.  Again,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  doctrine  that  it  is  not  by  inspiration , but  by 
assistance , that  the  Holy  Ghost  preserves  the  defining  au- 
thority in  the  Church  from  error,  the  Roman  Pontiffs  have 
always,  when  defining  doctrine,  had  the  previous  aid,  either 
of  a Synod  or  of  some  of  the  Roman  clergy,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  thoroughly  examine  the  matter.  In  this  very  ques- 
tion of  Monothelitism,  the  Pontiffs  who  succeeded  Honor- 
ius (2),  viz.,  John  IV.,  Theodore,  Martin,  and  Agatho,  took 
no  action  until  they  had  held  Synods.  That  Honorius  held  no 
Synod,  and  took  no  counsel  with  his  clergy,  before  writing 
these  letters,  is  patent  from  the  very  disputes  as  to  his 
meaning  which  were  rampant  so  shortly  after  his  death  ; 
some  of  his  advisers  must  have  been  living,  if  he  had  used 
any.  And  the  Sixth  Council  never  speaks  of  the  letters  of 


(1>  In  his  Animadverxi/frir on  the  propositions  of  Alexandre,  Roncaglla  asserts,  as  a proof 
of  the  private  nature  of  these  letters,  that  they  were  unknown  In  the  West  up  to  the  time 
of  the  Sixth  Council,  which  certainly  could  not  be  the  case  with  dogmatic  epistles.  He  says 
they  must  be  regarded  as  having  been  long  unknown  In  Africa,  from  the  fact  that  the  Sy- 
nods of  Carthage,  Numidia,  and  Mauritania,  held  against  the  Monothelites,  anathematized 
Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  and  Paul,  but  said  nothing  of  Honorius.  A denunciation  of  some  kind 
against  Honorius  would  have  been  made,  as  was  afterwards  done  in  the  Sixth  Council,  had 
his  epistles  been  known.  As  for  Europe,  he  asks  how  it  was  that  under  the  Pontificate*  of 
Honorius,  8everlnus,  John  IV.,  and  Theodore,  no  Monothelite  quoted  them  as  did  his  breth- 
ren in  the  East.  This  argument  would  be  a good  one,  for  forty-seven  years  elapsed  be- 
tween the  writing  of  the  letters  and  the  meeting  of  the  Council,  If  history  were  in  Its  favor. 
But  It  will  not  hold  as  to  the  African  churches,  for  the  quoted  Synods  were  held  during  the 
Pontiflcate-of,  John  IV.  (630-61U,  and  the  letters  were  written  In  688.  Considering  the  nature 
of  the  times,  six  or  seven  years  of  Ignorance  as  to  the  existence  of  the  letters  would  not 
prove  their  non-offlclal  character.  Important  communications  between  the  churches  were 
often  years  on  the  way.  When  the  African  fathers  sent  their  legates  to  Constantinople  to 
inquire  into  the  Nicene  canons  cited  by  Pope  Zosimus,  they  were  three  years  absent.  Nor 
will  Roncaglia’s  argument  hold  good  as  to  Europe  It  is  strange  that  he  should  have  for- 
gotten that  Pope  John  IV.  sent  a letter  to  the  emperor  complaining  of  Pyrrhus  for  “ scan- 
dalizing the  entire  West,”  by  spreading  far  and  wide  the  letters  of  Honorius,  aDd  interpret- 
ing them  in  a Monothelite  sense.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  this  letter  hereafter. 

(2)  Severinus  reigned  only  two  months. 


Digitized  by 


Google 


4-38  STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

Honorius  as  * Synodical,”  while  it  applies  the  epithet  in  the- 
case  of  t^ll  the  epistles  which  were  indited  after  or  in  a Synod, 
as  those  of  Sophronius,  Sergius,  and  Macarius.  But  not 
only  did  Honorius  send  these  letters  in  a thoroughly  unof- 
ficial manner;  in  the  documents  themselves  there  is  nothing 
to  indicate  that  they  were  meant  for  others  than  Sergius 
and  Pyrrhus.  When,  however,  the  Pontiffs  send  dogmatic 
epistles,  they  signify  that  these  are  meant  for  the  Uni- 
versal Church.  Finally,  -we  have  a most  conclusive  proof 
that  the  letters  of  Honorius  were  private,  not  dogmatic,  in 
the  epistle  of  Pope  Agatho  to  the  emperor,  which  was  read 
in  the  fourth  Action  of  the  Sixth  Council : “ This  is  the  rule 
of  the  true  faith,  which,  both  in  happy  and  in  evil  days, 
this  Apostolic  Church  of  Christ,  the  spiritual  mother  of 
your  most  tranquil  empire,  has  strongly  held  and  defended  ; 
that  Church  which,  by  the  grace  of  the  omnipotent  God,  is 
proved  to  have  never  wandered  from  the  path  of  Apostolic 
tradition,  or  to  have  depravely  succumbed  to  heretical  innov- 


ations   according  to  the  divine  promise  of  Christ  our 

Lord,  the  Saviour,  which  He  made  to  the  Prince  of  His  Apos- 
tles  Let  your  tranquil  Clemency  therefore  reflect  that 


the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  whose  faith  this  is,  who  promised 
that  the  faith  of  Peter  should  never  fail,  ordered  him  to 
confirm  his  brethren ; and  it  is  known  to  all  that  this  has  al- 
ways been  confidently  done  by  the  predecessors  of  my  Little- 
ness, the  Apostolic  Pontiffs,  whose  footsteps  that  Littleness, 
although  unequal  to  the  task,  desires  to  follow,  on  account  of 
the  office  conferred  upon  it  by  the  divine  mercy.”  Now 
Pope  Agatho  was  aware  of  the  prejudice  subsisting  against 
Honorius  in  the  East,  on  account  of  these  very  letters.  Had 
they  been  the  dogmatic  teachings  of  a successor  of  that 
Blessed  Peter  whose  faith  could  never  fail,  and  not  the  mere 
private  utterances  of  an  individual,  would  Agatho  have  been 
so  shameless  as  to  boast  that  his  predecessors  had  never 
failed  in  confirming  their  brethren  ? No — the  Pontiff  knew, 
and  the  Council,  which  heard  and  approved  this  epistle, 
knew,  that  whatever  the  letters  of  Honorius  contained  of 
imprudence,  or  even,  if  you  will,  of  heresy,  was  from  the 
mi"  [ oi  pm  m'b’vi'hi  •!  Honorius.  and  was  not  the  authorit  i- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  05*  rr/Ji  KGN0RIUS. 


439 


iive  presentation  of  a doclrhv,  :>n  the  part  of  the  universal 
teacher.  Here  then  vc  nr.^ht  conclude  the  defence  of  Pope 
Honorius,  for  it  is  plain  that  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy 
See  are  not  affected  by  his  letters  to  the  Monothelites.  But 
it  is  well  to  ascertain,  so  far  as  the  light  of  history  will  guide 
us,  whether  indeed  one  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  was  personally 
guilty  of  heresy.  The  accusations  against  Honorius  are 
based  upon  the  contents  of  his  letters  to  Sergius;  let  us  there- 
fore read  and  examine  the  documents. 

From  the  first  letter,  read  in  the  twelfth  Action  of  the 
Sixth  Council,  our  adversaries  select  the  following  passages  : 

We  have  received  the  letters  of  your  Fraternity,  and  by 
them  have  learned  of  the  introduction  of  new  disputes  as  to 
terms  by  a certain  Sophrouius  (once  a monk,  and  now,  as 
we  hear,  made  bishop  of  Jerusalem)  against  our  brother 
Cyrus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who  teaches  to  the  converts 
from  heresy  one  operation  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and 
having  examined  the  copy  of  the  letter  sent  to  the  same 
Sophronius,  and  seen  that  your  Fraternity  has  sufficiently, 
providently,  and  circumspectly  written,  we  praise  the  re- 
mover of  a novelty  in  speech  (1),  which  might  cause  scandal 

to  the  simple-minded We  ought  not  to  wrangle 

about  these  ecclesiastical  dogmas  (2),  which  neither  the 
Synodal  nor  canonical  authorities  seem  to  have  explained, 
that  is,  to  presume  to  preach  one  or  two  wills  in  Christ  God, 
when  neither  Scripture  nor  Apostolic  letters,  nor  a Synodical 
examination,  held  for  the  purpose,  have  appeared  to  decide. 

That  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  and  Word  of  God, 

by  whom  all  things  were  made,  is  Himself  one,  operating 
divine  and  human  things,  the  sacred  writings  plainly  show. 
Whether,  however,  on  account  of  the  works  of  the  Human- 
ity and  Divinity,  one  or  two  operations  ought  to  be  pro- 
claimed and  understood,  these  things  do  not  belong  to  us ; 
let  us  leave  them  to  the  grammarians,  wl\o  are  accustomed 
to  display  to  the  young  their  choice  derivations  of  words.  . 
....  We  exhort  your  Fraternity  to  preach  with  us,  as  we 
do  with  one  mind  with  you,  in  orthodox  faith  and  Catholic 

(1)  ‘‘  Nnvitatem  vocabuli." 

X*)  Dogmata  haec  eeclatiastica  rtiorquera." 


Digitized  by 


Google 


440 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


unity, — avoiding  the  use  of  the  introduced  terms,  one  or  two 
operations — that  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  Living  God,  most  true  God  in  two  Natures,  operating 
divinely  and  humanly.”  And  in  another  part  of  the  same 
epistle,  the  Pontiff  says  : “ Whence  we  acknowledge  one  will 
in  our  Lord  Christ,  because  the  Divinity  assumed  our  nat- 
ure, not  our  fault ; that  nature,  certainly,  which  was  created 
before  the  sin,  not  that  which  was  vitiated  after  the  fall. 
There  was  not  then  assumed  by  the  Saviour  a vitiated  na- 
ture, which  fought  with  the  law  of  His  mind.  For  another 
law  in  His  members,  or  a different  contrary  will,  was  notin 
the  Saviour.”  These  are  the  words  of  Pope  Honorius,  which, 
considered  together  with  the  action  of  the  Sixth  Council  in 
his  regard,  and  the  “ weakness  of  the  defence,”  caused  the 
learned  and  sincere  Cardinal  de  la  Luzerne,  as  he  himself 
says,  to  abandon  his  early  opinion  that  the  Pontiff  fell  into 
a simple  error  of  fact,  and  to ‘range  himself  with  those  who 
charge  Honorius  with  heresy. 

It  has  been  contended  that  this  epistle  was  corrupted  by  the 
Monothelites  ; that,  in  the  last  of  the  quoted  passages,  Hon- 
orius did  not  say,  “ one  will,”  but  “ a new  will.”  But  Pope 
John  IV.,  in  his  Apoloyy  for  Honorius,  the  Popes  Leo  II.  and 
Adrian  II.,  and  the  6th,  7th,  and  8th  Councils,  accepted  the 
passage  as  it  stands.  Nor  do  we  wish  to  reject  it,  for  there 
is  not  a more  orthodox  passage  in  the  whole  patrology. 
Honorius  plainly  asserts  that  as  Christ,  in  becoming  man, 
assumed  our  nature,  as  it  was  before  the  fall  of  Adam,  He 
did  not  incur  any  of  our  frailties,  and  hence  had  in  his  soul 
and  members  no  two  contrary  and  conflicting  wills  and  in- 
clinations, as  have  those  who  bear  the  effects  of  original  sin. 
But  there  is  no  need  for  us  to  thus  paraphrase  the  text ; its 
intended  meaning  is  obvious  on  the  instant  that  the  eye 
strikes  the  sentence.  But  La  Luzerne  answers  that  Hono- 
rius cannot  be  understood  as  speaking  of  the  one  will  of 
Christ’s  Humanity,  as  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  in  man 
two  faculties  of  will.  While  no  theologian  has  ever  been 
guilty  of  this  absurdity,  yet  all,  from  the  Apostle  down, 
have  ever  spoken  of  the  law  in  the  members  disputing  the 
empire  of  the  soul  with  the  law  in  the  mind  This,  and 


Digitized  by  VjOOQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OP  POPE  HONORIUS. 


441 


nothing  else,  is  the  meaning  of  Honorius  : “ There  was  not 

assumed  by  the  Saviour  a vitiated  nature,  which  fought 
with  the  law  of  His  mind.  For  another  law  in  His  members, 
or  a different  contrary  will,  was  not  in  the  Saviour.*’  As 
Palma  remarks,  the  sin  of  Monothelitism  consisted  in  its 
explanation  of  the  Eutychian  mistakes  upon  the  two  wills 
and  operations  in  Christ ; for  the  Eutychian  heresy,  when 
developed  as  to  the  will  and  operation  of  our  Lord,  inevita- 
bly brought  out  the  assertion  of  one  will  and  one  operation. 
Hence,  St.  Leo  the  Great  said  to  his  legate  Julian,  “His 
flesh  was  not  of  another  nature  than  ours,  nor  in  a way  differ- 
ent from  that  of  other  men  did  He  receive  His  soul,  which 
excelled,  not  in  diversity  of  kind,  but  in  sublimity  of  virtue ; 
for  He  had  nothing  contrary  in  His  flesh,  nor  did  a discord 
of  desires  generate  a strife  of  wills.  His  bodily  senses 
flourished  without  the  law  of  sin,  and  the  truth  of  His  affec- 
tions, being  under  the  control  of  the  Deity  and  of  His  mind, 
was  neither  tempted  by  allurements,  nor  yielded  to  attacks/' 
After  quoting  this,  and  a similar  passage  taken  from  St. 
Leo’s  epistle  to  Flavian,  Palma  well  demands  whether,  if  it 
was  right  for  St.  Leo  to  thus  urge  the  Eutychians,  Honorius- 
could  not,  in  almost-  the  same  controversy,  speak  as  he  did 
about  the  one  human  will  of  Christ. 

La  Luzerne  asserts  that  Pope  Honorius,  in  his  epistles 
to  Sergius,  talks  as  though  it  were  a matter  of  complete  in- 
difference whether  one  or  two  wills  be  proclaimed  ; else,  why 
enjoin  silence  as  to  the  terms  ? It  is  true  that  the  Pontiff 
advised  silence,  but  it  was  to  be  practiced  only  until  com- 
petent authority  should  decide  the  matter,  and  to  avoid 
scandal  to  the  simple-minded.  He  by  no  means  signified 
that  he  did  not  believe  it  necessary  to  acknowledge  two 
operations  in  Christ.  On  the  contrary,  he  said  to  Sergius  : 
“ We  must  confess  that  both  Natures  are  joined  in  the  one 
Christ  by  a natural  unity,  operators  and  operating  in  com- 
munion with  each  other  ; the  Divine  indeed,  operating  the 
things  that  are  of  God,  and  the  Human  working  the  things 
which  are  of  the  flesh  ; not  dividedly,  or  confusedly,  or  con- 
vertiblv,  teaching  that  the  Nature  of  God  is  converted  into 
man,  or  the  Nature  of  man  into  that  of  God,  but  confessing 


Digitize  v^ooQle 


442 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  integral  differences  of  the  Natures.”  Can  the  Catholic 
doctrine  be  stated  in  clearer  terms  ? And  before  Honorius 
spoke  of  the  advisability  of  silence,  he  told  the  patriarch 
that  “we  ought  not  to  define  one  or  two  operations,  but  in- 
stead of  ‘one  operation,’  as  some  say,  we  ought  to  truly  avow 
one  operator,  Christ  the  Lord  in  the  nature  of  each ; and 
instead  of'  two  operations,’  removing  the  term  ‘two  oper- 
ations,' we  ought  rather  to  teach  the  two  Natures,  that  is, 
the  Divinity  and  the  Humanity,  in  the  One  Person  of  the 
Only  Son  of  God,  each  operating  its  own,  inconfusedly,  un- 
dividedly,  and  inconvertible”  There  is  no  need  of  para- 
phrasing or  of  explaining  these  passages.  The  Catholic 
doctrine  as  to  the  two  wills  and  operations  is  so  plainly 
stated,  that  far  from  helping  the  cause  of  the  Monothelites, 
the  heresy  is  completely  subverted  by  them,  for,  “each 
operates  its  own,  inconfusedly,  undividedly,  and  inconver- 
tible,” in  which  phrase  there  is  certainly  not  only  no  impli- 
cation of  any  T lieandric  operation,  but  an  explicit  assertion 
of  two  distinct  ones. 

But  although  it  is  plain  that  the  epistles  of  Honorius  are 
thoroughly  orthodox,  there  remains  as  evidence  against  the 
Pontiff  the  condemnatory  action  of  the  Sixth  Council.  We 
have  shown  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  theory  of  Baronio 
as  to  the  vitiation  of  the  Acts  is  untenable.  It  therefore  be- 
comes necessary  to  reconcile  the  orthodoxy  of  Honorius  with 
the  clearly  denunciatory  language  used  by  the  Council 
against  him.  In  the  13th  Action , the  fathers  say:  “ Recon- 
sidering the  dogmatic  epistles  which  were  written  by  Ser- 
gius, once  patriarch  of  this  imperial  city,  which  may  God 
preserve,  both  to  Cyrus,  who  was  then  bishop  of  Phasis, 
and  to  Honorius,  once  Pope  of  ancient  Rome ; similarly  al- 
so the  epistle  from  him,  that  is,  Honorius,  written  to  the 
same  Sergius,  and  finding  them  entirely  different  from  the 
Apostolic  teachings,  and  the  definition  of  the  Holy  Councils 
and  of  all  reliable  fathers,  and  following  the  false  doctrines 
of  heretics  ; we  in  every  way  reject  them,  and  execrate  them 
as  noxious  to  the  soul.  And  we  have  decreed  to  throw  out 
from  the  Church  of  God  the  names  of  those  whose  impious 
dogmas  we  execrate,  that  is,  of  Sergius,  once  bishop  of  this 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


443 


v 

ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 

imperial  city,  which  may  God  preserve,  who  undertook  to 
write  on  this  wicked  dogma ; of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  of  Pyr- 
rhus, of  Peter,  and  of  Paul,  who  died  in  the  bishopric  of  this 
city,  which  may  God  preserve,  and  who  thought  similarly 
to  them  ; . . . . We  Lave  also  decided  to  eject,  together  with 
these,  from  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  God,  and  to  anathe- 
matize, Honorius,  who  was  Pope  of  ancient  Rome,  because 
we  find,  from  the  writings  he  gave  to  Sergius,  that  in  all 
things  he  held  the  latter’s  view,  and  confirmed  the  impious 
dogmas.”  In  the  16th  Action , the  fathers  exclaimed,  **  To 
the  heretic  Sergius,  anathema ; to  the  heretic  Honorius,  an- 
athema; to  the  heretic  Theodore  of  Pharan,  anathema.”  ,n 
the  18th  Action , they  cried,  “ To  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  and 
Dioscorus,  anathema ; to  Apollinaris  and  Severus,  anathe- 
ma ; to  Sergius  and  Honorius,  anathema ; to  all  heretics, 

anathema ; to  all  who  taught,  teach,  or  will  teach,  one  will 
and  one  operation  in  the  dispensation  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  anathema.”  In  the  Prosphonetic,  or  Acclamatory 
Address  to  the  emperor,  they  say,  “We  have  thrown  out  of 
the  ecclesiastical  limits  superfluous  novelties  of  speech,  and 
their  inventors,  and  deservedly  anathematize  them  ; that  is, 
Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter,  who 
held  the  see  of  Constantinople,  and  also  Cyrus,  who  was  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  and  with  them  Honorius,  who  was  bishop  of 
Rome,  because  he  followed  them.”  Finally,  in  the  Synodi- 
cal epistle  to  Pope  Agatho,  the  fathers  say,  “ We  have  afflict- 
ed with  anathema,  according  to  the  sentence  already  pro- 
nounced upon  them  by  your  letter,  Theodore,  bishop  of 
Pharan,  Sergius.  Honorius,  Cyrus,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Pe- 
ter.” The  action  of  the  Sixth  Council  certainly  tells  strongly 
agamst  the  fair  fame  of  Honorius  ; the  persistent  association 
of  his  name  with  those  of  such  noted  lieresiarchs  as  Euty- 
ches, Dioscorus,  Sergius,  and  Pyrrhus,  assuredly  indicates 
on  the  part  of  the*  fathers  of  the  Council,  a feeling  of  great 
bitterness  towards  his  memory,  while  the  explicit  use  of  the 
term,  “heretic”  in  his  regard,  would  appear  to  settle  the 
question.  And  nevertheless,  this  action  of  the  Council  does 
not  prove  that  Honorius  was  a heretic.  The  mere  appli- 
cation of  the  term  “ heretic”  does  not  show  that  the  indi- 


Digitized  by 


Google 


444 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


vidual  designated  did  not  defend  the  orthodox  doctrine.  What 
then  did  the  Sixth  Council  mean  by  branding  Honorius  with 
such  a stigma  ? For  stigma  the  name  of  heretic  certainly  was, 
and  in  those  days  a terrible  one.  There  is  no  need  of  con- 
jecture as  to  the  meaning  of  the  fathers ; their  meaning  and 
object  are  explained  by  those  who  were  well  acquainted  with 
both.  Pope  Leo  II.  confirmed  the  Acts  of  this  Council,  after 
hearing  from  the  Papal  legates  all  that  had  been  done  there- 
in,  and  he  tells  us  that  Honorius  was  condemned  for  weak- 
ness and  neglect ; in  fine,  as  a favorer  or  helper  of  heresy, — a 
terrible  reproach,  indeed,  for  one  in  his  position  to  receive, 
but  very  different  from  that  of  formal  heresy.  In  his  con- 
firmatory epistle,  sent  to  Constantine  Pogonatus,  Pope  Leo 
says,  “We  also  anathematize  the  inventors  of  the  new  error, 
that  is,  Theodore,  bishop  of  Pharan.  Cyrus  of  Alexandria, 
Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter,  ensnarers,  rather  than 
guides,  of  the  church  of  Constantinople  ; and  also  Honorius, 
who  did  not  illumine  this  Apostolic  Church  with  the  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  tradition,  but  allowed  it,  while  immaculate,  to 
be  stained  by  profane  betrayal.”  And  in  his  epistle  to  the 
bishops  of  Spain,  the  same  Pontiff  says,  “ Those,  however, 
who  contended  against  the  purity  of  Apost  die  doctrine, 
departing,  have  indeed  been  visited  with  eternal  condemna- 
tion ; that  is,  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  Ser- 
gius. Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter,  Constantinopolitans  ; with 
Honorius  who  did  not  extinguish  the  incipient  flame  of  heret- 
ical dogma,  a3  befitted  Apostolic  authority,  but,  by  neglect, 
nourished  it.” 

The  conduct  of  Honorius  had  greatly  helped  the  cause 
of  the  Monothelites.  He  had  conceded  to  Sergius  that 
which  the  cunning  patriarch  foresaw  would  be  most  oppor- 
tune for  the  dubious  fortunes  of  his  party,  namely,  silence 
as  to  the  terms  “ one  or  twro”  operations.  It  was  not  a 
question  of  terminology,  but  of  a truth,  for  the  specification 
of  which  those  numerals  were  necessary.  The  use  of  those 
terms  was  even  more  to  be  required  than,  three  hundred 
years  before,  had  been  the  use  of  the  word  homoousion  in 
the  matter  of  Arianism ; for  in  tlio-e  days,  there  were 
many  who  disliked  the  word,  but  held  the  orthodox  doc- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 


445 


trine,  while  in  the  case  of  the  wills  of  our  Lord,  if  a man 
rejected  the  “two,”  it  was  patent  that  he  admitted  but 
“ one.”  The  imprudence  of  Honorius  is  the  more  remark- 
able in  that  he  really  gained  nothing  for  the  cause  of  quiet, 
by  the  concession  of  silence,  since,  at  the  very  time  he 
allowed  it,  he  insisted  upon  the  teaching  of  the  true  doc- 
trine, couched  in  terms  very  nearly  as  clear  to  the  simplest 
mind  as  those  that  were  permitted  to  be  kept  in  abey- 
ance. He  meant  wTell,  but  he  should  have  remembered 
the  words  of  Cmlestine  I.  to  the  French  bishops:  “I  fear 
lest  to  be  silent  as  to  this  matter,  may  be  to  connive  at  it ; 
I fear  lest  they  talk  the  more,  who  permit  such  things 

to  be  said.  In  such  matters,  silence  is  suspicious 

The  cause  is  properly  our  own,  if  we  favor  error  by  si- 
lence.” As  he  yielded  to  a false  idea  of  prudence,  to 
what  was  really  a fmoral  cowardice,  the  fathers  of  the 
Sixth  Council  regarded  Honorius  as  a Pontiff  who  had 
neglected  his' duty,  and  who  therefore  became  worthy  of 
censure,  even  of  anathema. 

The  secretary  employed  by  Pope  Honorius  to  draw  up  the 
epistles  to  Sergius  was  a certain  abbotJohn,  and  St.  Maxi- 
mus Martyr  tells  us,  in  his  letter  to  Marinus  and  in  his 
dispute  with  Pyrrhus,  that  John  thus  spoke  to  a mutual 
friend,  the  abbot  Anastasius.  about  the  Pontiff's  words: 
“ We  said  there  was  one  will  in  the  Lord,  not  in  the  Divinity 
and  Humanity,  but  in  the  Humanity  alone.  When  Sergius 
wrote  that  some  were  asserting  two  contrary  wills  in  Christ, 
we  answered  that  Christ  did  not  have  two  contrary  wills,  of 
the  flesh,  that  is,  and  the  spirit,  as  we  have  after  the  fall,  but 
one  only,  which  naturally  affected  the  Humanity.”  Cardi- 
nal La  Luzerne  rejects  the  authority  of  abbot  John,  as  of 
one  anxious  to  make  his  own  apology.  Such  reasoning  is 
not  only  frivolous,  but  unworthy  of  the  eminent  author. 
The  high-toned  and  sincere- minded  prelate  must  have  i 
been  deeply  affected  by  the  society  of  the  skeptical  courtiers 
who  formed  but  too  large  a part  of  the  court-circles  of 
Louis  XVIII.  and  Charles  X.,  when  he  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  no  man  can  ever  be  heard  in  his  own  defence. 
The  unsupported  word  of  an  accused  person  is  of  no  value 


Digitized  by 


446 


STUDIES  IN  CUITRCH  HISTOKY. 


when  contradicted  by  positive  evidence  ; but  wlier  ix  tallies 
minutely  with  the  testimony  before  the  tribunal,  it  is  of 
great  account.  And  the  assertion  of  the  Papal  secretary  is 
corroborated,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  letters  themselves. 

No  person  could  have  better  understood  the  letters  of 
Honorius  than  Pope  John  IV.,  who  was  elected  six  years 
after  they  were  written.  His  letter  to  the  Emperor  Constan- 
tine, son  of  Heraclius,  is  so  pointed,  and  so  illustrative  or 
our  subject,  that  we  shall  transcribe  a good  portion  of  it : 
“All  the  West  is  scandalously  disturbed  because  our 
brother,  the  patriarch  Pyrrhus,  has  sent  letters  hither  and 
thither,  teaching  certain  new  doctrines,  outside  the  rule  of 
faith,  and  ascribing  the  same  views  to  Pope  Honorius  of 
holy  memory,  whereas  such  were  entirely  foreign  to  the 
mind  of  the  Catholic  Pontiff.  That  your  Benignity  may 
be  acquainted  with  the  whole  affair,  w hich  occurred  only  a 
little  while  ago,  I shall  narrate  it.  The  patriarch  Sergius, 
of  revered  memory,  informed  the  aforesaid  Roman  Pontiff, 
of  holy  memory,  that  certain  persons  were  teaching  two 
contrary  wills  in  our  Redeemer,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  aforesaid  Pope  learning  this,  he  replied  that  as  our 
Saviour  was  one  and  indivisible  (1),  so  He  was  conceived 
and  born  in  a manner  wonderfully  above  that  of  the  entire 
human  race.  As  to  the  dispensation  of  His  Incarnation, 
he  also  taugli  that  our  Redeemer,  j*ust  as  He  was  perfect 
God,  so  He  was  perfect  Man  ; and  that,  being  born  without 
sin,  He  renewed  the  pristine  nobility  of  the  image,  which 
the  first  man  lost  by  the  fall.  The  Second  Adam,  therefore, 
was  born,  having  no  sin,  either  in  His  birth,  or  in  His  con- 
versation with  men.  For  the  Word  being  made  Flesh 
in  the  similitude  of  the  flesh  of  sin,  assumed  all  of  ours, 
but  took  none  of  the  vice  of  guilt  which  is  derived  from 

the  fall and  therefore  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  deigned 

to  have  one  will,  natural  to  His  Humanity,  according 
to  the  original  formation  of  Adam  ; not  two  contrary  wills, 
such  as  we  feel  we  now  have,  who  are  born  of  the  sin 

of  Adam Whence,  knowing  that  in  His  birth  and 

life  there  was  no  sin.  we  properly  say,  and  truly  avow, 

1 The  text  has  monadicu*. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ALLEGED  HERESY  OF  POPE  HONORIUS. 


447 


that  there  is  one  will  in  the  holy  dispensation  of  His  Hu- 
manity ; and  we  do  not  teach  two  contrary  wills*  of  mind 
and  of  flesh,  as  rave  some  heretics,  as  though  He  were  a 

mere  man Therefore,  my  aforesaid  predecessor,  when 

teaching  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  said 
that  there  were  not  in  Him,  as  in  us  sinners,  contrary  wills 
of  mind  and  of  flesh.  Converting  this  to  their  own  views, 
some  persons  have  suspected  that  he  taught  one  will,  of 
both  Divinity  and  Humanity,  which  is  in  every  way  contrary 
to  the  truth.”  This  letter  of  Pope  John  IV.  goes  so  straight 
to  the  point,  that  La  Luzerne  finds  but  one  way  of  escape, 
and  that  is,  to  throw  it  out  of  court  altogether.  And  why? 
Because  it  was  written  by  poor  abbot  John,  once  more  Pon- 
tifical secretary.  La  Luzerne  shuts  his  mind  to  the  plain 
fact,  that  the  responsibility  and  authority  of  a letter  accrue 
not  to  the  scribe,  but  to  the  master.  Such  reasoning  as  this 
would  preclude  the  citation  of  nearly  all  public  documents, 
for,  in  all  probability,  since  the  origin  of  written  communica- 
tions, not  one  per  cent,  of  them  has  been  executed  by  the 
hands  that  signed  them.  The  cardinal  also  forgets  that  if 
abbot  John  is  accountable  for  the  letter  of  Pope  John  IV., 
he  should  also  bear  the  responsibility  of  the  letters  of 
Honorius. 

St.  Maximus  Martyr  (1)  in  his  Dialogue  with  Pyrrhus , fur- 
nishes us  with  the  following  defence  of  Honorius.  “ Pyrr. 
What  have  you  to  say  about  Honorius,  who,  writing  to  my 
predecessor,  openly  taught  one  will  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ?  Max.  Who  shall  properly  interpret  the  meaning 
of  that  epistle  ? He  who  drew  it  up,  at  the  side  of  Honor- 
ius, and  is  yet  living ; among  other  good  things,  conspic- 
uous for  the  pious  teachings  with  which  he  has  illumined 
the  entire  West?  (2)  Or 'shall  we  hear  the  Constantinopol- 
itans,  speaking  from  their  hearts  ? Pyrr.  He  who  compos- 
ed it.  Max.  That  same  person,  writing,  this  time,  at  the 

(1)  8t.  Maximus  was  one  of  the  most  strenuous  opponents  of  Monothelltlsm.  His  Dia- 
logue with  Pwrhux  is  an  account  of  the  dispute  which  the  holy  nbbot  held  with  the 
herosiarrb,  while  the  latter  was  in  exile  in  Africa.  When  exiled  by  Constant  to  Byzla.  he 
held  a famous  conference  with  the  imperial  emissaries,  Theodosius,  bishop  of  Caesarea, 
and  two  patricians ; afterwards,  he  held  another  before  the  emperor  in  the  palace  at  Con- 
stantinople. His  three  disputations  have  come  down  to  us  and  are  amoug  the  moat  pre- 
cious records  of  the  time.  The  Monothelites  thrice  procured  his  exile  : his  right  baud  was 
chopped  off,  his  tongue  plucked  out,  and  he  Anally  died  in  bis  third  exile  in  65". 

(2)  Abbot  John,  whose  authority  La  Luzerne  would  ignore. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


448 


STt6iES  YN:c5uRCH  HISTORY.  * f'* 


side  of  Pope  John,  says  to  the  divine  Constantine,  then  em- 
peror, ‘We  said  there  was  one  will  in  the  Lord,  not  in  the 
Divinity  and  Humanity,  but  in  the  Humanity  alone.  For 
when  Sergius  had  written  that  some  asserted  two  contrary 
wills  in  Christ,  we  replied  that  Christ  did  not  have  two  con- 
trary wills,  in  the  flesh,  that  is,  and  in  the  spirit;  but  only 
one,  which  is  naturally  an  essential  note  of  His  Humanity.’ 
That  it  was  thus,  is  evidently  shown  by  the  mention  made 
of  flesh  and  members,  which  cannot  be  attributed  to  the 
Divinity.” 

Anastasius  the  Librarian,  in  his  Preface  to  John  the  Dea- 
con, thus  vindicates  Honorius  : “ There  has  come  to  our 

hands  an  A}X)logy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  John  IV.,  for  Pope 
Honorius,  who  was  asserted  by  calumniators  to  have  written 
that  there  is  but  one  will  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I think 
that  this  Apology  sufficiently  excuses  him,  although  the 
Sixth  Council  anathematized  him  as  a heretic,  and  smote  him, 
already  judged  by  God,  with  the  javelin  of  reprobation; 
for  a man  does  not  become  a heretic  because  he  is  deceived 
by  error,  but  when  he  chooses  wrongly,  and  is  contentiously 
pertinacious  therein.  But  who  is  there  to  tell  us  whether 
he  really  wrote  that  epistle  ? Although  we  do  not  ig- 

nore that  St  Maximus,  in  his  letter  to  Marinus,  tells  us  it 
was  written  by  the  most  holy  abbot  John.  But  granted  that 
he  (Honorius)  was  the  dictator,  who  will  interrogate  him 
upon  it  ?” 

We  will  now  bring  this  dissertation  to  an  end.  We  have 
seen  that  there  is  no  heresy  in  the  letters  of  Pope  Honor- 
ius ; that,  even  if  there  were,  they  are  not  dogmatic  teach- 
ings of  a Roman  Pontiff,  addressing  the  Universal  Church, 
but  simply  the  private  utterances  of  the  writer ; that,  finally, 
Honorius  was  not  condemned  by  the  Sixth  Council  for 
heresy,  but  for  neglect  of  duty. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XXXVL 

THE  TRULLAN  OR  “QUINI8EXT”  8YN0D. 

This  Synod,  many  of  the  canons  of  which  were  rejected 
by  the  Holy  See,  and  to  which  the  same  authority  has  a U 
ways  refused  the  stamp  of  oeeumenicity,  is  regarded  by  the 
Greek  schismatics  as  an  appendix  of  the  Fifth  and  Sixth 
General  Councils.  Hence  its  name  of  u Quinisext.”  It  is 
4ilso  styled  ‘ Trullan,’’  from  the  fact  oi  its  having  been  held 
in  a domical  hall  of  the  imperial  palaca  at  Constantinople, 
troullos  being  Lower  Greek  for  t halos,  a dome.  It  was  con- 
voked by  the  Emperor  Justinian  II.,  and  the  reason  for  its 
-celebration  is  mentioned  by  its  members  in  their  Allocu- 
tion to  the  sovereign  : “ Since  the  two  Holy  and  Universal 
Synods  (5th  and  6th)  edited  no  holy  canons — unlike  the 
other  four  Holy  Universal  Synods — by  which  men  would 
be  led  to  abandon  an  evil  and  abject  manner  of  life,  and  to 
return  ^to  a better  and  higher  one, therefore  we,  as- 

sembled by  order  of  your  Piety  in  this  ruling  and  God-re- 
vering city,  have  issued  some  holy  canons.”  Where,  asks 
Pagi  (1)  did  the  Greeks  learn  that  a General  Council  must 
necessarily  issue  disciplinary  canons  ? The  date  of  the 
Trullan  Synod  is  uncertain.  Baron io  contends  that  the 
year  692  is  the  right  one,  and  his  opinion  is  received  by 
the  erudite  and  critical  Zaccaria  (2)  ; Alexandre  adduces  a 
plausible  argument  to  show  that  688  is  the  date.  As  to 
the  presidency  of  the  Synod,  the  eminent  Oratorian  assigns 
it  to  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch  Callinicus,  and  he  is 
followed  by  Christian  Lupus,  who  holds  that  the  signature  of 
Paul,  the  successor  of  Callinicus  which  is  read  in  the  codi- 
ces, was  substituted  for  this  latter  prelate’s,  he  having  been 
regarded  as  an  infamous  man.  Palma,  after  Pagi,  remarks 
that  this  assertion  of  Lupus  is  gratuitous,  and  that,  further- 
more, it  is  certain  that  the  patriarch  Paul  succeeded  Cal- 
linicus in  686,  and  reigned  until  693.  Paul,  therefore,  as 

(1)  Criticisms  on  Baronio , y.  692,  no.  8.  (2)  Polemical  History  of  Holy  Celibacy,  e.  9. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


450 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  old  codices  testify,  and  as  Blastres  asserts  (1),  was 
presiding  officer  of  the  Trullan  Synod. 

Historians  have  differed  as  to  the  question  whether  or 
not  any  Papal  legates  attended  this  Synod.  There  ought 
to  be  no  doubt  in  the  matter,  for  it  is  certain  that  if  any 
Pontifical  legates  had  been  on  hand,  they  would  have,  by 
virtue  of  their  office,  taken  precedence  of  the  patriarch 
Paul,  and  presided  over  the  assembly.  Yet  Balsamon  as- 
serts that  the  Synod  was  attended,  “ in  the  name  of  the 
whole  Roman  Synod,”  by  Basil,  metropolitan  of  Crete,  and 
by  the  bishop  of  Bavenna ; and  furthermore,  Balsamon 
adds  that  “ there  were  present  not  only  these,  but  the 
bishops  of  Thessalonica,  Sardia,  Heraclea  in  Thrace,  and 
Corinth,  who  were  the  legates  of  the  Pope”  (2).  That  the 
learned  and  generally  reliable  Balsamon  is  here  mistaken, 
is  proved,  firstly,  in  reference  to  the  prelates  of  Thessa- 
lonica, Sardia,  Heraclea,  and  Corinth,  by  the  fact  that  the 
Synodical  decrees  were  rot  subscribed  by  them.  Where 
their  signatures  might  have  been  placed,  we  read  “The 
place  of  the  Tkessalonican  (bishop),”  &c.,  which  shows  that 
they  were  absent,  and  that  the  decrees,  as  was  customary 
in  such  cases,  were  to  be  sent  to  them  for  subscription. 
As  for  Balsamon’s  assertion  that  Basil  of  Crete,  who  did 
subscribe,  represented  “the  whole  Roman  Synod,”  this 
representation  does  not  imply' ary  legatine  authority,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term.  Basil  was  at  that  time  Papal 
Apocrisiarlus,  or  embassador,  at  the  Byzantine  court,  and  as 
such,  represented,  in  some  respects,  “the  whole  Roman 
Synod,”  but  that  office  did  not  qualify  him,  without  a 
special  delegation  ad  hoc , to  act  as  Papal  legate  at  a Council. 
Constantine  Pogonatus,  after  the  6th  Council,  had  in  vain 
requested  Pope  Leo  II.  to  give  plenipotential  powers  to  the 
Papal  embassador ; Basil,  therefore,  possessed  no  legatine 
authority  at  the  Trullan  Synod.  Anastasius  the  Librarian 
certainly  informs  us  that  “ the  Emperor  Justinian  having 
ordered  a Council  to  meet  in  the  imperial  city,  the  legates  of 
the  Apostolic  See  came  to  it,  and  being  deceived,  sub- 

<1)  Preface  to  the  Nomocanon  of  Photiu s.  (2)  Commentary  on  the  Nwww* 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  TIUJL&AN  OB  “ QUINISEXr”  SYNOD. 


451 


scribed.”  (1)  But  this  passage  also  may  be  explained  as  re- 
ferring to  the  nuncio  Basil,  who,  with  some  other  Papal  em- 
bassador. attended  the  Synod.  Again,  as  Pagi  observes,  this 
same  Basil  is  styled  a legate  in  his  subscription  which  is  read 
in  the  18th  Action  of  the  6th  Council.  At  that  time  also  he 
was  Papal  Apocrmarius  at  the  Byzantine  court,  but  in  the 
6th  Council,  as  we  learn  from  the  letters  of  Pope  Agatha 
and  of  Constantine  Pogonatus,  he  was  not  joined  with  the 
regular  legates. 

The  Greek  schismatics  entertain  a particular  esteem  for 
this  Trullan  Synod,  and  affect  to  consider  it  as  a continua- 
tion ot  the  6th  Council,  so  as  to  be  warranted  in  regarding  it 
as  oecumenical.  Their  reason  is  to  be  found  in  its  anti-cel- 
ibitic  and  other  anti-Roman  canons.  Some  of  the  canonsr 
however,  are  most  worthy  of  praise.  T hus,  the  sixth  pro- 
hibits priests,  deacons,  and  subdeacons,  from  contracting 
matrimony  after  their  ordination.  The  seventh  rebukes  the 
arrogance  of  such  deacons  as  presumed  in  certain  localities, 
to  take  precedence  of  priests.  The  eighth  commands  the  an- 
nual assembling  of  provincial  Councils.  The  ninth  forbids- 
clerics  to  keep  wine- shops.  The  fourteenth  assigns  30  years 
as  the  age  at  which  one  may  become  a priest;  25  for  a dea- 
con ; 40  for  a deaconess.  The  twentieth  suspends  a bishop 
wliodares  to  publicly  teach  in  another  diocese  than  his  own. 
The  twenty-sixth  suspends  a priest  who,  through  ignorance, 
assists  at  an  illicit  marriage.  The  thirty-second  condemns 
the  Armenian  custom  of  not  mixing  water  with  the  wine  to 
be  consecrated.  The  thirty-third  condemns  the  Armenian 
system  of  restricting  the  priesthood  to  a certain  caste.  The 
forty-second  represses  the  wanderings  of  hermits,  and  orders 
them  either  to  remain  in  their  solitudes  or  to  enter  a mon- 
astery. The  forty-fifth  condemns  the  custom,  in  vogue  in 
certain  convents  to  this  day,  of  dressing  as  a bride,  and  or- 
namenting with  silks,  <fcc.,  one  about  to  take  the  veil.  The 
sixty-fifth  rebukes  the  superstition  of  dancing  around  bon- 
fires at  the  time  of  the  new  moon.  The  sixty-eighth  orders 
that  copies  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  the  works  of  the  Fathers 

(1)  Life  of  Po\k  Sergius  I. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


452 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


be  never  sold  to  merchants,  unless  such  copies  are  moth- 
oaten  or  otherwise  ruined.  The  sixty-ninth  debars  all  lay- 
men from  access  to  the  sanctuary,  the  emperor  alone,  when 
offering  gifts,  excepted.  The  seventieth  nullifies  the  mar- 
riage of  an  orthodox  person  with  a heretic ; but  declares 
that'  the  union  of  infidels  is  not  to  be  dissolved,  if  the  con- 
verted party  wishes  to  cohabit  as  before,  and  if  the  infidel 
consents  to  cohabit  “without injury  to  the  Creator.”  The 
seventy-fifth  ordains  that  “inordinate  vociferations”  be  abol- 
ished in  church-singing.  The  ninety-fi  rst  subjects  abor- 
tionists to  the  same  penalties  as  homicides.  The  hundred- 
fold-sixth  excommunicates  women  who  excessively  dress 
and  adorn  their  hair.  The  hundred-and-eightli  declares 
adulterous  the  marriage  of  one  betrothed  to  a third  party. 

Of  the  102  Trullan  canons,  the  Holy  See  rejected  the  fol- 
lowing : The  third,  which  received  the  eighty-five  Apostolic 
Canons  and  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  The  thirteenth, 
which  attacked  the  law  of  clerical  celibacy,  and  anathema- 
tized those  who  debarred  priests  and  deacons  from  the  so- 
ciety of  their  wives.  The  fifty-fifth,  which  condemned  the 
Western  custom  of  fasting  on  the  Saturdays  of  Lent.  The 
sixty-seventh,  which  condemned  the  eating  of  blood.  The 
eighty- second,  which  prohibited  the  representation  of  the 
Saviour  in  the  form  of  a Lamb. 

Justinian  II.  sent  the  102  Trullan  canons  to  Pope  Sergius 
I.,  begging  their  confirmation.  What  followed  is  best  learned 
from  the  narrative  of  Anastasius  the  Librarian:  “ The  bless- 
ed Pontiff  would  not  satisfy  the  emperor,  nor  wrould  he  receive 
those  volumes,  or  allow  them  to  be  read.  He  spurned  them 
as  of  no  authority,  choosing  rather  to  die,  than  to  consent 

to  error Then  the  emperor  sent  his  cruel  sword- 

bearer,  Zacchary,  with  an  order  to  take  the  Pontiff  to  the  im- 
perial city.  But  the  mercy  of  God  interfering,  and  the  bless- 
ed Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles,  helping,  the  hearts  of  the 
Ravennese  and  Pentapolitan  soldiers  were  touched, ....  and 
they  would  not  allow  the  Pontiff  to  be  removed  from  Rome. 
A great  number  of  the  soldiers  having  come  together,  the 
frightened  Zacchary  thought  he  might  be  killed,  and  hence  he 
ordered  the  city  gates  to  be  closed,  and  trembling,  took  refuge 


Digitized  by  UjOOQle 


THE  TRULLAN  OR  “ QUINISEXT  ” SYNOD.  453 

in  the  bed-chamber  of  the  Pope,  begging  him  with  tears  to 

be  merciful The  Ravennese  haring  entered  the  city 

by  St.  Peter’s  gate,  the  populace  rushed  to  the  Lateran,  anx- 
ious to  see  the  Pontiff.  They  then  threatened  to  break  down 
the  doors  if  they  were  not  opened.  In  despair  Zacchary  now 
hid  himself  under  the  Pontiff’s  bed,  and  fairly  lost  his  senses. 
But  the  Pope  comforted  him,  telling  him  not  to  fear/’ 
Ac.  Anastasius  then  relates  how  Sergius  was  joyfully  ac- 
claimed by  the  people,  and  how  the  wretched  minion  of  the 
Byzantine  sovereign  was  opprobriously  expelled  from  the 
Eternal  City. 

During  the  Pontificate  of  John  VII.  (705-707),  Justinian 
II.  again  endeavored  to  procure  a confirmation  of  the  Trullan 
canons.  The  Pontiff,  fearful  of  offending  the  emperor,  did 
not  openly  condemn  the  obnoxious  decrees,  but,  mindful 
of  his  duty,  he  did  not  receive  them,  but  contented  himself 
with  returning  them  by  the  hands  of  the  messengers  who 
had  brought  them.  The  Pontificate  of  Sisinnius  was  of  only 
twenty  days’  duration,  but  during  that  of  his  successor,  Con- 
stantine (708-715),  Justinian  again  pushed,  his  favorite  pro- 
ject. As  we  learn  from  Anastasius,  the  Pontiff  visited 
Constantinople,  and  was  most  reverently  received,  but  the 
silence  of  all  Greek  authors  as  to  any  confirmation  of  the  ob- 
noxious canons  is  a proof  that  the  emperor  did  not  gain  his 
object.  But  the  affectionate  and  reverential  treatment  ac- 
corded to  Pope  Constantine  by  Justinian  seems  to  show  that 
the  Pontiff  approved  of  such  of  the  Trullan  decrees  as  were 
not  averse  to  the  ancient  decrees  of  the  Holy  See.  That 
this  was  also  according  to  the  mind  of  Pope  John  VIII.  (872 
-882  k is  gathered  from  Anastasius,  in  his  Preface  to  the 
Latin  version  of  the  Seventh  Council,  which  he  dedicated  to 

that  Pontiff : “ Your  Apostolate  discerning the 

Church  receives  only  such  rules  of  the  Holy  Councils  as 
are  not  contrary  to  the  right  faith  and  to  approved  customs 
and  which  in  no  way  whatever  conflict  with  the  decrees  of 

the  Roman  See Therefore,  those  regulations 

which  the  Greeks  declare  to  have  been  issued  by  the  Sixth 
Council,  and  those  of  tnis  Synod  (7th),  are  so  received  by 
the  chief  See,  that  none  o i them  are  to  be  accepted  which 


Digitized  by  KjOOQle 


STUiHfcS  IS  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


45  i 

are  found  to  be  contrary  to  the  olden  canons,  to  good  mor- 
als, or  to  the  decrees  of  the  holy  Pontiffs  of  this  See.” 

In  fine,  the  Holy  See  has  never  approved  of  the  3d, 
13th,  55th,  67th,  and  82d  Trullan  canons.  It  must  be 
remembered,  also,  that  the  Trullan  Synod  was  a particular 
and  national,  not  a General  Council,  and  that  hence,  even 
though  its  canons  had  been  approved  by  Borne,  the  discip- 
line enforced  by  them  would  not  therefore  necessarily  obtain 
in  the  Universal  Church. 


CHAPTEB  XXX VIL 

ISLAMISM. 

Mohammed  was  born  at  Mecca  in  the  year  570,  of  poor, 
but  respectable  parents.  Losing  them  when  yet  a child,  he 
was  brought  up  by  his  uncle,  a merchant,  and  with  him 
made  many  journeys  through  Syria  and  other  lands.  When 
he  was  about  25  years  old,  he  married  a rich  widow  named 
Kadijah,  in  whose  service  he  had  formerly  been ; and  being 
thus  enabled  to  abandon  mercantile  pursuits,  he  turned  his 
energies  to  the  acquirement  of  power.  He  had  picked  up 
from  a Nestorian  monk,  named  Sergius,  a limited  knowledge 
of  the  Mosaic  law  and  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  this  served 
him  as  a basis  for  his  new  religion.  For  fifteen  years  he  re- 
tired during  the  period  of  a month  to  a cavern  of  Mh  Hera, 
where  he  pretended  to  receive  revelations  from  God,  through 
the  Angel  Gabriel.  When  he  thought  that  the  Arabs  were 
pretty  well  prepared  to  listen  to  him,  his  wife  and  Sergius 
having  meauwhile  prepared  the  way  by  their  wonderful 
stories,  he  announced  that  he  had  been  sent  to  revive  the 
ancient  religion  of  Abraham,  of  Ishmael,  of  Jesus,  and  the 
prophets.  He  commenced  his  propaganda  in  the  year  612, 
and  continued  it  until  his  death  in  631,  leaving  already  in 
the  profession  of  the  new  faith  nearly  the  whole  of  Arabia. 
His  successors  continued  his  missionary  career  in  the  style 
he  had  adopted,  that  is,  by  fire  and  sword  on  the  one  hand. 


Digitized  by  Google 


ISLAMISM. 


455 


and  a pandering  to  human  weakness  on  the  other,  until  near- 
ly all  Asia  and  Africa  acknowledged  the  truth  of  Islam.  Very 
soon  the  new  doctrine  invaded  Europe.  The  Byzantine  em- 
pire, weakened  by  corruption,  and  still  more  by  schism, 
offered  but  feeble  resistance  to  the  fanatical  hordes  who 
overran  its  fairest  provinces.  But  through  the  indomitable 
energy  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  the  advancing,  waves  of  bar- 
barism were  checked  by  the  Crusades,  and,  in  more  modern 
times,  the  Christian  heroism  of  Poland  and  Hungary  forced 
the  followers  of  the  prophet  to  abamdon  all  designs  on  the 
West. 

The  doctrines  of  Mohammed  are  contained  in  the  Koran, 
a book  which  the  prophet  said  he  received  from  the  Angel 
Gabriel  (1).  According  to  him,  the  combined  intellects  of  all 
the  men  in  the  world,  aided  by  all  the  demons,  could  not 
have  composed  any  one  of  its  chapters  ; it  is  the  greatest 
and  most  divine  of  all  miracles.  From  amid  a mass  of 
fables,  puerilities,  and  obscenities,  taken,  respectively,  from 
the  Jewish  Talmud,  the  Apochryphal  Gospels,  and  the  Ara- 
bic romances  of  his  day,  we  extract  from  the  Koran  the  fol- 
lowing principal  doctrines  of  Mohammed:  There  is  but  one 
God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  the  Judge  of  all  men ; God 
has  no  Son,  for  He  needs  nothing  ; when  Jesus  wished  to  be 
adored  as  God,  He  was  rebuked  by  God,  and  excused  Him- 
self, saying,  “ Thou  knowest  that  I have  given  to  men  only 
Thy  commandment,  that  thej  should  adore  only  Thee,  my 
God  and  their  own.'*  ( Sura  13  and  14)  Jesus  was  the 
Word  of  God  ( Su . 2);  His  Gospel  was  the  Light  and  Confir- 
mation of  the  Old  Testament  (Su.  12) ; He  was  divinely 
conceived,  and  born  of  Mary,  a virgin  sister  of  Moses  (2), 
and  at  His  birth,  which  took  place  under  a palm  tree,  Mary 


(1)  The  Koran  is  best  known  to  English  readers  through  the  translation  of  George  Sale 
whose  deistical  sympathies  caused  him  to  treat,  in  his  preface,  the  Mohammedan  doctrines  with 
very  great  leniency.  The  best  refutation  of  the  Koran  is  that  of  Marraccl  (Kntue  \icut  uf 
the  Koran ; Padua,  ltiws),  professor  of  Arabic  in  the  Propaganda  at  Rome,  in  the  seven- 
teenth certury.  This  author  makes  no  assertion  that  he  does  not  corroborate  with  a text, 
and  with  testimonies  from  Arabic  authors.  Volney,  in  his  Vtryage  in  Syria  ond  hfft  pt 
(made  in  1783-85),  although  himself  more  than  half  infidel,  says  that  the  insensate  teachings 
of  the  Koran  are  the  natural  cause  of  all  the  miseries  experienced  by  the  subjects  of  the 
1'orte.  Mohammed  tells  his  followers,  in  the  commencement  of  the  book,  that  none 
of  Its  points  can  admit  of  doubt,  that  a terrible  punishment  awaits  all  who  will  not  accord  it 
a full  and  hearty  belief.  One  of  the  most  salient  characteristics  of  the  Koran  is  its  silence 
as  to  the  Interior  virtues : there  is  no  mention  of  the  love  of  God  and  our  neighbor,  of 
mortification,  of  humility,  of  penitence. 

(2)  The  reader  need  not  lie  surprised  at  this  anachronism,  for  the  Koran  is  filled  with  such 
errors.  Mohammed  called  himself  “the  prophet  without  learning.” 


Digitized  by  AjOOQle 


456 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


fainted  through  pain,  and  was  restored  by  eating  of  the 
fruit  which  Jesus,  from  the  womb,  called  upon  the  palm  to 
produce ; He  predicted  His  own  death  and  resurrection  ; 
He  was  not  crucified,  God  having  substituted  another  in 
His  place  ( Su . 29,  53,  11).  The  virgin  Mary  was  devoted 
to  God  by  her  mother  at  the  instant  ot  her  conception,  and 
was  the  purest  of  all  creatures ; her  maternity  of  Jesus  was 
announced  by  the  angels  (Su.  29).  Solomon  received  his 
wisdom  from  the  demons,  and  was  a great  magician  (Su,  1) ; 
Abraham  received  the  law  from  God  Himself,  and  built  a 
temple  at  Mecca  (Su.  2) ; God  also  gave  the  law  to  Moses 
(Su  42) ; Ishmael  was  one  of  the  prophets  (Su.  11).  The 
dead  will  arise  at  the  last  day  (Su.  28).  Paradise  is  a 
place  of  voluptuous  enjoyment,  a land  watered  by  most 
limpid  streams,  and  shaded  by  beautiful  trees ; the  good 
who  inhabit  it  are  adorned  with  rings  and  bracelets,  always 
have  plenty  to  eat,  and  recline  on  magnificent  couches ; 
the  region  produces  streams  of  sweet  milk,  the  most 
generous  of  wdnes,  and  the  purest  of  honey.  But  above 
all  other  joys,  the  houris  are  beautiful  virgins,  never 
deflowered  by  either  men  or  devils,  and  are  destined  for 
the  solace  of  the  faithful  (Su.  23,  28.  54,  57,  62,  65)  (1). 
The  wicked  and  unbelievers  are  to  be  tortured  in  everlasting 
fire  (Su.  66).  There  is  a Purgatory,  and  w’e  should  pray  for 
the  dead  ( Stt . 29,  46).  All  living  things  came  from  one 
soul ; men  are  derived  from  shade,  demons  from  fire  (Su.  15, 
65)  (2).  Man  is  the  victim  of  fate  (Su.  50,  67).  Adam  fell, 
and  hence  came  concupiscence  into  the  world  (Su,  30).  The 
doctrines  of  the  Koran  are  not  to  be  disputed,  and  no  proof 
is  to  be  required  of  their  truth  ; all.questions  about  this  book 
are  to  be  left  till  the  last  day  (Su,  9).  The  faithful  are  en- 
couraged to  battle  for  Islam  ; Paradise  is  only  for  the  strong 
in  war  ; those  who  fall  in  battle,  are  not  said  to  die,  but 
rather  live  in  God  (Su.  6)  ; those  who  flee  from  the  combat 
will  be  punished  by  eternal  fire ; especially  against  Christians 
should  the  true  believers  war  ; captives  should  be  killed  or 

(1)  Mohammed  assigns  a separate  paradise  to  women,  and  It  Is  ren^arkable  that  while  he 
create*  the  houris  for  the  delectation  of  men,  he  assigns  no  lovers  to  the  gentle  sex. 

i'J ) 'Muoo.oed  mptradieN  this  doctrine  in  other  places,  saying  that  man  wj.h  formed  from 
tile  t*ui . u,  ai>. i i.ie  demons  from  nothing. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ISLAMISM. 


46? 


reduced  to  slavery  (1) ; the  enemy  who  yields,  is  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  faith ; four  out  of  the  twelve  months  are  to 
be  devoted  to  war  ( Su . 6, 18, 19).  Circumcision  is  command- 
ed, but  is  not  to  be  effected  until  the  thirteenth  year.  A man 
may  have  several  wives,  according  to  hi3  means,  providing  he 
is  able  to  keep  peace  among  them ; wives  may  be  repudiated 
or  changed  ; one  may  not  marry  his  sister,  aunt,  granddaugh- 
ter^ daughter-in-law,  or  two  sisters  ( Su . 8, 9).  An  adulteress* 
is  to  be  imprisoned  at  home  until  death  ; a disobedient  or 
sulky  wife  is  to  be  whipped  (Ibi).  The  word  of  an  infidel  haa 
no  value  (Su.  6).  The  use  of  pork  or  of  blood,  and  of  wine, 
is  prohibited  (Su.  12,  3,  16).  Frequent  prayer,  with  the  face 
turned  towards  Mecca,  is  enjoined ; before  it,  if  water  is  at 
hand,  the  face,  neck,  feet  and  hands,  are  to  be  washed ; if 
there  is  no  water,  sand  is  to  be  used  (Su.  3,  9).  Friday  is  the 
special  day  for  worship  (Su.  72).  Mohammed  is  more  severe 
upon  usury  than  are  some  Christian  moralists  (Su.  3).  Re- 
venge on  an  enemy  is  a sacred  duty  (Su.  60,  52).  Once  at 
least  in  his  life  every  believer  must  make  the  pilgrimage  to 
Mecca,  unless  prevented  by  absolute  poverty  (Su.  19).  The 
religion  founded  by  Mohammed  (2),  as  Mosheim  remarks  (3) 
Would  have  been  somewhat  different,  had  he  met  with  no 
Resistance  in  its  propagation.  The  obstinacy  of  the  Arabs* 
in  clinging  to  many  of  their  ancient  traditions,  and  the  hope 
of  attracting  both  Christians  and  Jews  to  his  ranks,  caused 
the  impostor  to  tolerate  much  that  was  otherwise  distaste- 
ful to  him  (4). 

It  is  not  our  province  to  enter  upon  a refutation  of  Mo- 
hammed’s doctrines,  but  we  may  be  allowed  to  draw  the 
reader’s  attention  to  the  following  points  : True  religion  ia 

ordained  for  the  contemplation  of  truth,  and  tends  to  the 
cultivation  of  purity  of  heart  and  to  the  leading  of  a good 

(1)  To  the  credit  of  Mohammed  it  must  be  admitted  that  though  be  warred  for  Islam,  he 
showed  no  love  for  the  use  of  torture.  In  this  respect  his  successors  were  very  different  from 
him. 

(2)  Christians  generally  style  this  religion  “ Mohammedanism.”  The  term  is  offensive  to 
Moslem  ears,  and  sounds  to  them  very  much  as  ‘"Nazarenism”  would  to  us.  A Mussulman 
designates  his  faith  as  Mam . an  Arabic  word  signifying  “full  submission  to  the  will  of 
God.”  Its  formula,  as  announced  by  the  muezzin  from  the  minarets.  Is  ” Allah  illah 
Allah  : Mohammed  round  atfa/i”— ”God  is  God:  Mohammed  is  His  prophet.” 

(3)  Hist 8 th  Cent.,  p.  1,  c.  2, 6 2. 

(4)  Le  Noir  rightly  sums  up  the  Mohammedan  system  as  a tyranny  of  God  over  creatures,  of 
man  Aver  woman,  and  of  the  strong  over  the  weak.  See  hls  edition  of  Bergier’s  Diction- 
ary tor  an  excellent  essay  on  this  subject. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


458 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


life  ; while  the  spirit  of  Islam  is  of  the  earth,  earthy,  an  1 
tends  merely  to  the  brutal  joys  of  lust  and  gluttony.  True 
religion  does  not  contradict  itself,  but  the  law  of  Moham- 
med is  contradictory  in  nearly  every  one  of  its  points.  True 
religion  is  zealous  for  the  majesty  and  dignity  of  God,  while 
Islam  attributes  to  Him  many  absurd,  puerile  and  $ven 
wicked  things.  True  religion  does  not  use  the  art  of  lying 
as  a means  of  propagation,  while  the  Koran  contains  innu- 
merable and  shameless  untruths  (1).  True  religion  does  not 
oppose  what  it  recognises  as  true  and  divine;  the  Koran 
acknowledges  the  Gospel  as  true  and  divine,  and  yet  oppos- 
es it  most  strenuously.  True  religion  does  not  assert  that 
God  is  the  author  of  sin  ; while  Mohammed,  by  declaring 
that  God  created  Satan  out  of  a pestiferous  fire  ( Su . 25). 
makes  the  demon  evil  by  nature.  From  the  very  origin  of 
Islam,  there  have  not  been  wanting  Christian  authors  to  de- 
fend the  truth  against  its  attacks,  but  as  the  system  was  one 
which  relied  more  upon  the  sword  than  upon  argument  for 
success,  our  writers  generally  confined  themselves  to  the 
encouragement  of  the  Christian  peoples  in  resisting  its  in- 
roads. However,  there  are  many  who  combated  it  from  a 
religious  point  of  view.  Thus,  P pe  Pius  II.  (1458-64)  wrote 
a learned  and  elegant  epistle  to  the  Turkish  sultan,  Moham- 
med IL  Cardinal  Cusa  dedicated  to  the  same  Pontiff 
three  books  entitled  77/e  Koran  Sifted . The  Greek  Emperor, 
John  Cantacuzene  (d.  1400),  wrote  four  Ap-Hogies  for  Chris- 
tianity against  the  Mohammedans.  The  Dominican,  Richard 
of  Florence,  gave  an  excellent  Confutation  ofttie  Latv  of  Mo- 
hammed. Cardinal  Torquenmda  also  wrote  much  on  this  mat- 
ter. Among  more  modern  writers,  may  be  mentioned  Guad- 
agnolo.  of  the  Minor  Clerks ; Malvasia,  of  the  Minors  Conven  - 
tual;  the  Jesuits,  Gonza’ez  and  Luchesini ; aud  finally,  the 
most  satisfactory  of  all,  Marracci,  of  the  Congregation  of  tho 
Mother  of  God.  The  reader  may  also  consult  with  profit, 
Bergier,  in  his  Dictionary  • as  also  Canth  passim , in  his  Univer- 
sal History,  and  especially,  in  tin  Documents , art.  Mohammed . 

(’)  In  Sum  13,  the  Christians  are  said  to  adore  Mary  as  a God.  In  Su.  15,  Abraham 
is  said  to  have  been  an  idolater,  and  converted  by  studying  the  stars.  In  Su.  27,  Moham- 
med calls  upon  God  to  witness  that  he  wax  taken  from  Mecca  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  to 
Heaven,  to  receive  a revelation.  In  Su.  47,  he  asserts  that  Christians  attribute  daughters,  as 

Well  as  a Son,  to  God. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


ISLAMISM. 


459 


The  most  casual  reader  of  the  Koran  cannot  fail  to  remark 
the  gross  ignorance  displayed  by  its  author.  Geography, 
history,  chronology,  physics,  and  common  sense,  are  equally 
ignored  in  his  mixture  of  Talmud,  Arabic  romance,  ang 
Christian  orthodoxy  and  heresy.  Mohammed  was  not  un- 
conscious of  his  defects  in  matter  of  science,  and  he  well 
knew  that  knowledge  would  be  an  enemy  of  his  doctrine, 
lienee,  he  forbade  his  followers  the  study  of  letters  and  of 
philosophy,  and  for  more  than  a century,  this  prohibition 
was  strictly  enforced  (1) ; it  was  in  accordance  with  this 
idea,  that  the  caliphs  burned  the  extensive  library  of  Alex- 
andria and  all  others  the}'  could  reach.  This  hatred  of 
science,  on  the  part  of  the  Arabian  impostor,  would  seem, 
of  itself,  sufficient  to  preclude  any  possibility  of  sympa- 
thy from  modem  incredulists.  Yet,  so  anxious  are  these 
gentry  to  apologize  for  everything  not  Christian,  that 
they  retort  upon  us  by  saying  that  Christ  never  made  any 
profane  studies,  that  His  Apostles  were  ignorant,  that  the 
great  St.  Paul  was  an  enemy  of  philosophy.  They  forget 
that  Jesus  had  no  need  of  study;  that  His  Apostles  were  en- 
lightened by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  they  successfully 
preached  their  doctrine  befero  the  most  learned  men  of 
their  day;  that,  as  yet,  infidelity  has  found  no  errors  in  their 
writings  ; that  St.  Paul  was  not  hostile  to  true  learning, 
but  to  that  false  philosophy  which  destroys  the  soul  of  man. 
It  is  sickening  to  be  obliged  to  draw  a comparison  between 
Christianity  and  Islam,  but  the  interests  of  truth  compel  us 
to  the  task.  The  opponents  of  Christianity  are  fond  of  as- 
serting that  the  proofs  for  the  divine  origin  of  both  religions 
are  of  the  same  kind  ; that  a Christian  cannot  point  to  the 
wonderful  propagation  of  his  faith  as  indicative  of  its  having 
come  from  God,  since  the  spread  of  Islam  was  far  more  rap- 
id, and  nearly  .as  extensive.  In  chap.  4,  we  have  treated  of 
the  propagation  of  Christianity  as  a proof  of  its  divinity  ; it 
is  easy  to  show  that  rapid  success,  while  it  certainly  can  be 
predicated  of  Islam,  cannot  be  adduced  in  favor  of  its 
claims  to  obedience. 

(1)  Bruckir  ; History  of  Philosophy , t>.  8. 


Digitized  by  ^.ooQle 


460 


8TUDIE8  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


We  had  occasion  to  remark,  in  chapter  4th,  that  in  the  age 
of  Augustus  it  was  as  improbable,  humanly  speaking,  that 
Christianity  should  escape  destruction,  as  it  was  natural, 
among  the  Orientals,  and  at  any  time,  that  the  law  of  Mo- 
hammed should  be  adopted  by  many.  The  Mohammedan 
system  was  conformable  to  the  brntal  instincts  of  depraved 
nature  ; therefore,  humanly  speaking,  it  ought  to  have  pros- 
pered. Christianity,  on  the  cqntrary,  was  diametrically 
opposed  to  the  tendencies  and  genius  of  the  age  that  wit- 
nessed its  birth,  and  was  a pronounced  enemy  of  all  that 
the  carnal  man  held  most  dear ; therefore,  humanly  speaking, 
it  should  have  succumbed.  To  explain  the  propagation  of 
Christianity,  we  must  recur  to  the  Providence  of  God  ; to 
explain  that  of  Mohammedanism,  the  forces  of  nature  are 
at  hand,  and  furnish  evident  reasons  by  which  to  account 
for  it.  Christianity,  therefore,  rightly  claims  a divine  origin, 
and  hence,  our  obedience;  Mohammedanism,  however, plainly 
shows  a human  origin,  and  hence  cannot  demand  our  allegi- 
ance. And  how  different  was  the  force  against  which  Moham- 
med contended  from  that  which  was  hurled  against  Chris- 
tianity ! In  the  days  of  the  Arabian  impostor,  the  Roman 
Empire  was  already  tottering  ; in  those  of  his  successors,  its 
military  strength  was  contemptible.  But  in  the  early  days 
of  Christianity,  Rome  was  at  the  zenith  of  her  power,  and  it 
was  all  put  forth  against  the  rival  of  the  state  religion. 

Few  men  have  surpassed  Mohammed  in  matter  of  lux* 
ury  ; still  fewer  have  so  impudently  excused  their  turpi- 
tude. Not  content  with  a plurality  of  wives,  he  arrogated 
to  himself  the  right  to  take  those  of  others ; not  content 
with  the  intercourse  of  his  more  mature  slaves,  he  abused 
those  of  tender  age.  And  he  dared  to  justify  these  excesses 
as  being  expressly  permitted  him  by  God,  composing,  with 
that  intent,  the  33d  and  36th  chapters  of  the  Koran.  Al- 
though he  prohibited  promiscuous  fornication  to  others, 
he  wrote  the  66th  chapter  to  show  that  God  allowed  it  to 
him.  He  was  greedy,  for  he  claimed  for  himself  the  fifth  of 
all  booty,  and  received  bribes  for  judicial  decisions ; he  even 
declared  that  God  had  given  him  the  entire  earth  as  his 
own.  The  very  followers  of  Mohammed  did  not  deny  that 


Digitized  by  y.ooQie 


I8LAMISM. 


461 


he.was  a hypocrite,  perfidious*  vindictive,  and  ambitious ; 
they  excused  him  for  all,  believing  that  in  everything  he 
was  inspired  by  God  (1).  And  this  man  is  called  the  peer 
of  Jesus  Christ  by  certain  of  our  infidels.  Both  were  en- 
thusiasts, it  is  said,  both  great  religionists,  both  successful 
reformers,  and  the  system  founded  by  each  is  human. 

The  apologists  of  Mohammedanism  admit  that  the  false 
prophet  gave  no  signs  of  a divine  mission,  that  he  not  only 
performed  no  miracles,  but  that  he  declared  he  had  not  come 
for  that  purpose.  To  the  people  of  Mecca,  who  demanded 
his  divine  credentials  in  the  shape  of  a miracle,  he  replied 
that  Moses  and  Jesus  had  worked  them,  and  yet  had  convert- 
ed but  few;  that  miracles  do  not,  of  themselves,  convince 
the  mind.  The  followers  of  Mohammed,  indeed,  long  after 
his  death,  attributed  many  miracles  to  him,  but  they  are  all 
unworthy  of  God,  and  are  all  unattested  by  eye-witnesses. 
Nor  do  enlightened  Mussulmans  lay  any  stress  upon 
these  alleged  prodigies  of  the  prophet ; they  cite  only  the 
rapid  success  of  their  religion  as  a proof  of  its  divine  ori- 
gin. The  miracles  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  adduced  by  us  as  evidence  of  His  divine  mission ; 
they  are  attested  by  eye-witnesses,  and  are  admitted  by 
Pagans  as  well  as  Christians ; and  finally,  they  are  all 
worthy  of  God.  But  there  is  wanting  in  Islamism  another 
sign  of  divine  origin,  which  is  possessed  by  Christianity, 
in  an  eminent  degree,  viz.,  a sound  system  of  moral  teach- 
ing. Although  prescribing  a multitude  of  external  obser- 
vances, such  as  purification  before  prayer,  the  pilgrimage 
to  Mecca,  circumcision,  praying  five* times  a day,  alms-giv- 
ing, the  fast  of  the  Ramadan  (2)  ; there  is  not  a word  of  love 
of  God  and  of  our  neighbor,  of  humility,  of  gratitude  to 
God,  etc.  (3).  Idolatry  alone  can  exclude  the  Moslem  from 
eternal  happiness.  Chastity  is  of  no  account,  revenge  is  a 
duty,  perjury  is  permissible.  No  law  is  more  sacred  to  the 

(1)  Marracci  , Preface  to  Koran % notes  toSn.  CG. 

( 2 ) During  this  fast,  which  lasts  twenty-nine  days,  no  one  can  taste  food  or  drink  during 
daylight.  The  fast  Is  followed  by  three  days  of  gluttony  called  the  **  Little  Balram .” 

(3)  The  angel  Gabriel,  disguised  as  a Bedouin,  asked  Mohammed,  “Of  what  does  Islam, 
consist  V”  The  prophet  replied,  “ In  professing  one  God,  and  me  as  his  prophet : in  observ- 
ing the  hours  of  prayer  and  the  fast  of  the  Ramadan;  In  alms-glving.  and  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  pilgrimage  to  Mecca.”  And  Gabriel  answered,  “ Such  it  is.” 


Digitized  by 


Google 


462 


STUDIES  IN?  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Islamites  than  the  following  : “ Fight  the  infidels  until 
every  false  religion  is  annihilated  ; put  them  to  death,  spar- 
ing none”  (1).  Against  the  “ infidel  dogs  * all  injustices  are 
not  only  permitted,  but  commanded,  and  wherever  the  law 
of  Islam  is  untempered  by  fear  of  the  Frank,*’  it  is 
only  by  force  of  gold  that  the  unbeliever  can  live  in  the 
land.  And  this  is  the  moral  code  compared,  to  its  advan- 
tage, with  that  of  Christ,  by  certain  modern  writers.  These 
authors  carefully  abstain  from  noting  the  baneful  effects  of 
Islamism.  So  thoroughly  perverted  is  the  imagination  of  a 
Mussulman,  that  he  cannot  realize  the  possibility  of  the 
least  liberty  of  intercourse  between  the  sexes,  without  crime 
as  a consequence  ; hence,  the  captivity  of  women  under  the 
jailership  of  eunuchs  Some  of  our  philosophasters  make 
the  climate  responsible  for  this  corruption.  But  has  the 
climate  changed  since  the  time  when  Asia  and  Africa  were 
Christian?  In  those  days,  the  husband  was  not  so  diffident 
of  the  virtue  of  his  wife  as  to  keep  her  under  lock  and  key. 
And  how  about  Abyssinia,  and  other  Christian  communities 
which  are  afflicted  with  the  same  terribly  demoralizing  cli- 
mate ? They  accord  the  weaker  sex  the  same  liberty  that 
we  practise,  and  with  no  evil  results  (2). 

Perhaps  the  principal  evil  of  Islamism,  at  least,  the  one 
which  is  most  felt  by  Christians  living  in  its  midst,  and  by 
surrounding  nations,  is  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestina- 
tion. Believing  in  remorseless  fate,  the  Islamite  does  not 
take  the  same  precautions  that  the  Christian  takes  to  ward 
off  pestilence,  famine,  <fcc.  The  filth  of  Eastern  cities,  of  most 
Eastern  people  in  their  persons,  is  too  well  known  to  need  de- 
scription. But  no  fear  of  plague  can  cause  the  Mussulman 
to  forget  that  “ What  will  be,  will  be  ; God  is  great”  (3) 

(1)  Kt>ran , Su.  8,  v.  12  and  89  ; 9,  v.  80 ; 47,  v.  4. 

(2)  In  Nubia,  females  are  often  nearly  naked  ; sometimes,  entirely  so.  Yet  they  are  eml* 
nently  modest  and  retiring. 

(3)  As  we  write  these  pages  (1883),  the  European  powers  are  said  to  be  considering  the 
propriety,  or  rather  the  necessity,  of  some  regulation  which  will  obviate  the  evils  attendant 
upon  the  pilgrimages  to  Mecca,  always  a source  of  danger  to  the  health  of  the  world,  oa 
account  of  the  filthy  habits,  enjoined  by  their  law  on  these  occasions,  upon  the  devotees. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


ORAPTEK  XXXVm. 


THE  PAULICIAN  HERESY  AND  THE  VENERATION  OF  THE  CROSS.  I 

About  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  the  Manicheans, 
*who,  since  the  days  of  JustiD,  had  been  severely  repressed 
by  the  civil  power,  came  to  be  known  as  Paulicians.  The 
nlime  was  derived  from  one  Paul,  who.  with  his  brother 
John,  endeavored  to  revive  the  dying  ,?rror  of  Manes  at 
Samosata  in  Armenia.  The  successor  of  Paul,  one  Sylvanus, 
tried  to  reconcile  his  system  with  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  always  plentifully  availed  himself  of  the  sacred 
books  when  teaching.  Many,  therefore,  were  led  to  be- 
lieve that  the  resurrected  Manicheism  was  pure  and  una- 
dulterated Christian  doctrine.  Schism  soon  broke  the  ranks 
of  the  Paulicians,  and  about  810  a bloody  war  occurred  be- 
tween the  two  factions  of  Sergius  and  Baanes;  one  Theo- 
datus,  however,  succeeded  in  pacifying  and  uniting  them. 
One  of  the  distinguishing  features  of  these  sectarians  was 
their  opposition  to  all  veneration  of  saints  and  their  images, 
but  especially  to  any  veneration  of  the  cross  ; a feature  which 
won  for  them  the  friendship  of  the  Mohammedan  hordes, 
then  being  hurled  over  the  imperial  frontiers — in  fact,  the 
Iconoclast  heresy  of  the  eighth  century  was  but  a logical  out- 
come of  the  sympathy  between  the  Manicheans  and  the 
Islamites.  The  Paulicians  and  their  descendants  never  wav- 
ered in  their  belief  in  the  two  Principles  of  Manes.  They 
denied  the  divine  maternity  of  Mary,  but  deluded  the  ignor- 
ant and  simple  by  professing  their  belief  in  “ the  most  holy 
Mother  of  God,  into  whom  entered,  and  from  whom  came  the 
Lord signifying,  in  their  own  minds,  the  heavenly  Jeru^ 
salem,  into  which  Christ  opened  an  entrance  for  man.  They! 
denied  Transybstantiation.  They  carried  their  aversion  to 
any  veneration  of  saints  to  an  extravagant  extreme,  in  the 
case  of  St.  Peter  the  Apostle,  asserting  that  his  denial  of 
Christ  had  damned  him  to  hell.  They  held  that  it  was 

403 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


464 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


right,  in  time  of  persecution,  to  dissimulate  one’s  religion. 
The  morals  of  the  Paulicians,  like  those  of  all  the  Mani- 
<cheans,  were  of  a description  that  forbids  mention  (1). 

We  take  the  opportunity  furnished  by  this  notice  of  Paul- 
icianism,  to  show  the  antiquity  of  the  Catholic  custom  of 
venerating  the  Cross.  Protestant  authors  insist  that  there 
is  no  vestige  of  our  practice  to  be  found  in  the  records  of 
the  first  three  centuries  (2).  In  the  fourth  and  succeeding 
centuries  the  evidence  of  this  veneration  is  so  plain,  that  no 
Protestant  writer  of  importance  has  ventured  to  impugn  it. 
Were  no  other  proof  on  hand  than  the  reproach  of  Julian 
to  the  Christians  of  his  day,  it  alone  would  suffice  to  show 
that,  in  the  fourth  century,  the  Cross  was  venerated  more, 
perhaps,  than  it  is  in  the  nineteenth.  “ You  adore,”  said  the 
imperial  apostate,  “the  wood  of  the  Cross,  you  make  a sign 
of  it  on  the  forehead,  you  cut  it  on  the  doors  of  your 
houses,”  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  replies:  ‘The  Cross  re- 
minds us  of  Christ ; we  honor  it  because  it  reminds  us  that 
we  should  live  for  Him  who  died  for  us  all  ” (3).  But 
let  us  see  whether  the  first  three  centuries  furnish  no 
proof  that  the  early  Christians  venerated ' the,  Cross. 
Minutius  Felix,  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century,  com- 
posed a Dialogue  entitled  Octavius , in  which  a Christian,  Oc- 
tavius, and  a Pagan,  Caecilius,  dispute  on  religious  matters. 
In  the  course  of  the  debate,  Caecilius  says  (chap.  9):  “ They 
who  insist  that  the  Christian  worship  consists  in  the  ador- 
ation of  a man  punished  for  his  crimes  with  death,  and  in 
the  adoration  of  the  fatal  wood  of  the  Cross,  attribute  to 
these  wicked  men  altars  worthy  of  them.”  And  in  chap. 
32,  he  thus  menaces  the  Christians:  “ There  remain  for 
you  now,  threats,  tortures,  crosses  or  gibbets,  not  for 
you  to  adore,  but  for  you  to  be  fastened  upon  them.”  And 
in  chap.  29,  Octavius  replies : “ You  are  far  from  the  truth 
when  you  assert  that  we  worship  a criminal  and  his  cross, 
when  you  think  that  we  would  regard  as  God  a malefactor, 

or  any  mortal  man We  neither  desire  nor  honor 

gibbets,  but  you  do  make  gods  out  of  wood,  and  do  adore, 

(1)  SeeCEDRENrs:  Compendium  of  Histories.  Euthymius  ; Panoply,  tit.  SO. 

(2)  Daili  b : Worship  of  the  Latins , Geoev,  1671,  b.  5.  (3)  Against  Julian*  b.  0. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


PAULICIAN  HERESY  AND  VENERATION  OF  THE  CROSS.  465 

perhaps,  crosses  as  portions  of  your  gods.”  In  this  testi- 
mony of  Minutius  Felix,  we  observe  that  it  was  the  opinion 
of  the  Pagan  world  of  his  time  that  the  Christians  venerated 
the  Cross.  Nor  does  the  Christian  apologist  repel  the 
charge ; he  simply  denies  that  his  co-religionists  worship 
wood,  as  his  adversary  is  wont  to  do.  St.  Justin,  also  of  the 
second  century,  in  his  Apology , I.,  no.  55,  says  that  the  Cross 
is  the  most  striking  sign  of  the  power  of  Christ,  of  His  em- 
pire over  the  world  ; he  recalls  the  words  of  Isaias,  saying 
of  the  Messiah : “ And  the  government  is  upon  his  shoulder/' 
saying  that  here  the  Cross  is  signified.  Tertullian  writes, 
about  the  year  203:  “ In  all  our  actions,  when  we  enter  or 
go  out,  when  we  put  on  our  clothes,  when  we  bathe,  when 

we  approach  the  table,  when  we  go  to  bed,  etc we  sign 

the  Cross  upon  our  foreheads.  This  practice  is  not  com- 
manded by  an  express  law  of  Scripture;  but  tradition  teach- 
es it,  custom  confirms  it,  and  faith  observes  it"  (1).  Origen, 
writing  about  the  year  226,  says  the  same  (2),  and  in  another 
place  he  asks:  “What  do  the  demons  fear?  At  what  do 
they  tremble  ? Without  doubt  at  the  Cross  of  Christ,  on 
which  they  were  defeated,  on  which  their  rule  and  power 
were  overthrown.  Fear  and  trembling  come  over  them, 
when  they  behold  the  sign  of  the  Cross  confidently  impressed 
upon  us”  (3). 

Claude  of  Turin,  generally  regarded  by  Protestants  as  one 
of  their  forerunners,  used  to  object  against  our  practice  as  fol- 
lows: If  every  piece  of  wood,  fashioned  into  a Cross,  is  to  be 
venerated,  because  Christ  hung  upon  a cross,  then  many  other 
things  must  be  venerated,  which  Catholics  pass  unnoticed. 
The  Saviour  was  but  six  hours  on  the  cross,  while  he  was 
nine  months  in  the  womb  of  Mary;  therefore,  all  young  vir- 
gins should  be  venerated.  So  with  cribs,  for  Christ  lay  in 
one;  so  with  boats,  for  Christ  slept  on  one  ; so  with  asses, 
for  Christ  rode  on  one  ; so  with  rocks,  for  Christ's  body  was 
laid  in  one  ; so  with  reeds,  for  Christ  was  beaten  with 
them,  etc.  This  argumentation  is  just  about  as  logical  as 
any  adduced  by  the  more  modern  of  our  adversaries.  In 
this  matter,  just  as  in  reference  to  his  other  errors  the  Tur- 

(1)  Crown , c.  4.  (2)  On  Ezcchiel , c.  9.  (8)  Exodus.  Horn.  VI. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


466 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


iuese  heretic  was  refuted  by  his  contemporary,  Jonas  of  Or- 
leans (1).  The  reader  will  find  every  phase  of  this  question 
admirably  treated  by  Alexandre  (2). 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

THE  ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  THE  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL. 

From  very  early  days  war  was  often  made  upon  the  devo- 
tion of  Catholics  to  holy  images.  Not  only  the  Jews,  but 
the  Marcionites,  Manicheans,  and  Theopaschites,  misrepre- 
sented the  Catholic  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and  endeavored 
to  procure  the  banishment  of  all  images  from  Christian  tem- 
ples. But  the  Iconoclasts  (3)  of  the  eighth  century  were  the 
first  to  cause  serious  trouble  in  the  Church  because  of  image- 
veneration.  The  war  was  originated  by  the  Jews  of  Arabia  in 
ithe  year  723.  A certain  influential  Hebrew  named  Saranta- 
pechys,  addicted  to  magic,  assured  the  caliph  Jezid  that  he 
would  have  a long  and  happy  reign,  provided  he  would  ban- 
ish the  images  of  Christ  and  His  saints  from  his  dominions. 
A decree  to  that  effect  was  accordingly  issued,  and  as  the 
Christians  refused  to  obey,  it  was  forcibly  executed  by  Jews 
and  Mohammedans  (4).  Having  succeeded  so  well  in  Arabia, 
the  Jews  now  turned  their  attention  to  Constantinople  (5), 
where  Leo  the  Isaurian  occupied  the  throne.  This  emperor 
was  already,  in  a manner,  bound  to  the  Jews,  for  while  he 
was  yet  an  obscure  soldier,  two  of  their  number  had  prophe- 
sied that  he  would  mount  the  throne,  and  he  had  sworn  to 
be  counselled  by  them,  if  his  ambition  was  gratified  (6). 
When  the  people  were  informed  of  the  edict  of  Leo,  order- 

(1)  Veneration  of  Image s,  In  Preface  to  Book  II.  (2)  Cent.  VII.  dlss.  7. 

(8)  This  word,  meaning  “ Image-breakers,  ” Is  derived  from  the  Greek  words  eikan 
(image)  and  klnztin  (to  break). 

(4)  See  the  Relation  of  the  monk  John,  vicar  of  the  eastern  bishops,  read  in  the  7th  Coun- 
cil. 

(5)  They  were  greaMv  aided  bv  Constantine,  bishop  of  Nacolia  in  Phrygia,  whose  im- 
piety, duringthe  i»er>e<,ution  of  .Jezid,  had  led  hit,  diocesans  to  expel  him.  and  who,  com- 
Jug  to  (fie  capital,  attained  the  favor  of  l,eo. 

t\n  This  we  learn  from  iheijreek  hi.aorians,  Cedrenus.  Zonaraand  Constantine  Manassas. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  467 

ing  the  removal  of  images  from  the  churches,  so  fierce  a tu- 
mult was  excited  among  them,  that  the  emperor  thought  it 
prudent  to  dissimulate.  He  according’y  declared : “ I do  not 
design  that  the  images  be  altogether  removed,  but  I order 
them  to  be  placed  in  a more  elevated  situation,  that  they 
may  not  be  kissed,  and  thus  be  treated  with  disrespect, 
while  they  are  worthy  of  honor.  ” St.  Germanus,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  used  all  his  influence  against  the  imperi- 
al innovations,  but  in  vain  (1).  So  great  became  the  fury  of 
the  emperor  against  his  Catholic  opponents,  that,  in  the  year 
726,  he  ordered  the  burning  of  the  great  library  of  the  Impe- 
rial College,  that  he  might  destroy  in  its  flames  twelve  of 
the  professors,  together  with  the  rector,  who  would  not  join 
the  Iconoclasts.  By  this  horrible  act  were  lost  to  the  world 
303,000  valuable  volumes  (2).  There  had  been,  for  many 
years,  over  the  Brazen  Gate  of  the  city,  a statue  of  our  Lord, 
and  Leo  ordered  it  to  be  removed.  The  people  resisted 
with  arms,  and  many  of  the  imperial  officers  were  killed  \ 
the  women  threw  the  agent  of  Iconoclasm  from  the  ladder, 
after  which  they  were  themselves  put  to  the  sword.  Execu- 
tions and  confiscations  soon  became  the  order  of  the  day. 

At  this  time  the  Pontifical  chair  was  occupied  by  Gregory 
II.,  and  the  Isaurian  deemed  it  prudent  to  request  him  to 
convoke  a General  Council  to  consider  the  image  question. 
Among  other  things  in  reply,  the  Pontiff  said:  “You  have 

asked  that  a General  Council  be  called  ; such  a thing  seems 
to  us  to  be  useless.  You  are  a persecutor  of  images,  a con- 
tumelious enemy,  and  a destroyer  ; cease,  and  give  us  your 
silence  ; then  the  world  will  enjoy  peace,  and  scandals  be  no 

more Do  you  not  know  that  this,  your  attempt 

against  images,  is  a turbulent,  insolent,  and  arrogant  wicked- 
ness? While  the  churches  of  God  are  in  peace,  you  fight,  and 
raise  hatred  and  scandal.  Stop  this,  and  be  quiet;  then  will 
there  be  no  need  of  a Synod.  ” Leo  went  so  far  as  to  con- 
spire against  Pope  Gregory.  He  sent  emissaries  to  Borne 
with  orders  to  destroy  the  statues  of  St.  Peter,  and  to  carry 
the  Pontiff  into  exile,  but  the  fidelity  and  affection  of  the- 


(1)  Act*  of  fit.  Stephen  the  Yonnper,  in  works  of  St.  John  Damascene. 

(2)  See  tLe  Greek  \wiu.o 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


468 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Romans  frustrated  his  plans.  With  reference  to  this  attempt, 
Gregory  wrote:  “ If  you  insult  us,  and  conspire  against  us. 

there  is  no  need  for  us  to  descend  to  a contest  with  you.  The 
Roman  Pontiff  will  go  out  into  the  Campagna  twenty-four 
stadia  (1),  and  you  may  then  come,  and  strike  the  winds.” 
Gregory,  however,  tried  to  pacify  the  furious  monarch,  but 
he  sent  his  legates  into  exile,  where,  as  Pope  Nicholas  I.  at- 
tests (2),  they  died.  In  the  year  730,  Leo  determined  to  rid 
himself  of  the  intrepid  patriarch  Germanus.  Deposed  from 
his  throne,  he  was  exiled  and  finally  strangled,  when  nearly 
a hundred  years  of  age  (3).  When  Pope  Gregory  was  in- 
formed of  these  events,  he  held  a Synod  at  Rome, condemned 
the  Iconoclasts,  and  excommunicated  the  Emperor  Leo  and 
the  intruding  patriarch  Anastasius  (4).  In  the  year  731, 
Gregory  II.  was  succeeded  by  a third  Gregory  in  the  See  of 
Peter,  and  one  of  his  first  acts  was  to  send  a legate  to  Con- 
stantinople. So  furious  was  the  conduct  of  Leo  at  his  recep- 
tion, that  the  unfortunate  man  dared  not  deliver  the  Pontifical 
letters,  and  returning  to  Rome  after  his  fruitless  voyage,  he 
owed  his  escape  from  degradation  by  the  indignant  Gregory 
to  the  prayers  of  the  Italian  bishops  (5).  A Synod  of  ninety- 
three  bishops  was  held  in  732  by  Gregory  III.,  in  which 
was  promulgated  a Synodical  Constitution,  decreeing  : ‘ If 

any  one  hereafter,  contemning  ancient  custom  and  the  faith- 
ful practice  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  shall  prove  himself 
a deposer  and  destroyer  of,  and  a profaner  and  a blasphemer 
against,  holy  images,  let  him  be  foreign  to  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  unity  and  society 
of  the  whole  Church”  (6).  This  decree  was  sent  to  Leo  by 
the  “Defender”  Constantine,  but  the  papers  were  torn  up, 
and  the  legate  imprisoned  for  a year.  Notwithstanding  this 
treatment,  another  legation  was  dispatched  the  following 
year,  and  this  time  the  Roman  Senate  took  care  to  remind 

(1)  The  stadium  was  a distance  of  625  feet.  (2)  Epistle  to  the  Emperor  Michael. 

(3)  This  holy  prelate  was  said  by  h*s  contemporaries  to  possess  the  Rift  of  prophecy.  Once, 
while  entering  the  imperial  presence,  his  stole  was  trod  upon  by  the  emperors  chancellor, 
Anastasius,  and  his  own  intruding  successor.  “Do  not  hurry.”  said  Germanus.  “the  cir- 
cus will  wait  for  you  ” Fifteen  years  afterwards,  Copronymushad  the  unworthy  man  flogged 
In  the  circus  for  treason. 

(4;  Adrian  I.;  Epistle  I.  to  Charlemagne. 

(5)  He  also  promised  to  prove  more  courageous  on  a second  trial,  but  when  Leo  heard  he 
was  on  his  way,  he  had  him  stopped  in  Sicily. 

(6)  Anastasius  the  Librarian,  Life  of  Gregory  HI. 


Digitized  by  v^ooole 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  469 

the  Byzantine  monarch  of  the  necessity  of  being  at  peace 
with  Rome,  if  he  hoped  to  recover  the  Italian  territories 
which  the  empire  had  lost.  This  embassy  also  met  with 
insults,  and  the  legates  were  detained  for  eight  months. 
From  this  time  until  his  death  in  741,  the  fury  of  Leo  to- 
wards the  orthodox  knew  no  bounds,  and  many  martyrs 
succumbed  to  it 

With  the  advent  of  Constantine  Copronymus  (1)  to  the 
throne,  the  new  heresy  gained  strength,  for  this  prince  for- 
bade his  subjects  to  call  Mary  the  Mother  of  God,  or  to  give 
to  any  martyr  or  confessor  the  title  of  saint.  Hence  it  was 
that  when  Artabasdus,  his  brother-in-law,  rebelled  against 
Copronymus,  the  people  gladly  acclaimed  him  emperor  (2). 
During  the  two  years  of  his  reign,  Artabasdus  restored  the 
images,  but  in  744,  Copronymus  regained  the  throne,  and 
Iconoclasm  again  triumphed.  The  Papal  throne  was  at 
this  time  filled  by  St.  Zacchary,  and  he,  in  turn,  endeavored 
to  repress  the  rising  heresy.  When  his  legates  arrived  at 
Constantinople,  the  emperor  was  anxious  about  an  ensuing 
compaign  against  the  Saracens,  and  hence  he  received  the 
embassy  with  respect,  and  dismissed  it  in  hope.  But 
when  the  war  had  successfully  closed,  he  became  more  ar- 
dent in  his  hatred  of  images.  He  assembled,  in  754,  a 
pseudo-synod  of  338  bishops,  but  took  care  not  to  invite  or 
consult  any  of  the  patriarchs.  On  the  last  day  of  the  con- 
venticle, all  the  prelates  went  to  the  Blachernal  church 
of  the  Virgin,  where  Copronymus  himself  ascended  the  pul- 
pit, and  proclaimed  as  universal  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, a certain  Constantine,  an  heretical  monk  who  had 
been  bishop  of  Silseum  in  Pamphylia,  but  who,  on  account 
of  crime,  had  been  deprived  of  his  see.  The  emperor  and 
the  new  patriarch  then  proceeded  to  the  Forum,  and  pub- 
licly proclaimed  the  heresy  established  in  the  pseudo-syn- 
od, and  anathematized  all  the  worshipers  and  defenders  of 
images,  especially  Germanus  of  Constantinople,  George  of 

(1)  So  called  because  at  his  baptism,  which  was  performed  by  immersion,  he  had  defiled 
iie  sacred  font. 

(2)  Anastas  ins.  the  pseudo-patriarch,  greatly  inflamed  the  minds  of  men  against  Coprony- 
mus. after  Artabasdus  had  succeeded,  however,  by  swearing  by  the  Holy  Cross  that  he  had 
said:  ” Do  not  think  that  Christ,  whom  Mary  bore,  was  anything  more  than  man  ; for  Mary 
bore  him.  Just  as  my  mother  bore  me.”  This  is  learned  from  Cedrenus- 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


470 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Cyprus,  and  John  Damascene.  The  Definition  of  this 
Pseudo-Synod  bears  the  title  : “ Definition  of  the  Great, 

Holy  and  Universal  Seventh  Synod/'  and  the  legitimate  Sev- 
enth General  Council  thus  spurns  the  claim  : “ How  can  it 
be  great  and  universal,  when  the  bishops  of  the  other 
churches  have  neither  received  it,  nor  agreed  with  it.  but  have 
anathematized  it  ? It  did  not  have  the  aid  of  the  Homan 
Pope  of  the  time,  nor  of  the  priests  who  are  around  him, 
either  by  his  vicars,  or  by  an  Encyclical  Epistle,  as  the 
Conciliary  law  requires.  Neither  was  there  the  consent  of 
the  patriarchs  of  the  East,  that  is,  of  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
and  the  Holy  City,  nor  of  the  co-ministers  and  high-priests 
who  are  with  them.  And  how  can  it  be  the  Seventh,  when 
it  does  not  agree  with  the  preceding  six  holy  and  venerable 
Synods?  ” After  the  dissolution  of  his  false  'Synod,  Coprony- 
mus  and  his  patriarch  ordered  the  Blessed  Eucharist  to  be 
brought  forth,  and  then  commanded  the  people  to  swear  upon 
it  that  they  would  no  more  venerate  images,  but  would  exe- 
crate them  as  idols.  The  worthy  emperor  then  perorated 
against  the  monastic  system,  for  it  happened  that  the  monks 
were  almost  alone,  among  the  clergy  of  the  capital,  in 
their  repugnance  to  the  imperial  theology.  He  ordered 
that  these  “idolaters,”  whose  cowl  was  a avestment  of 
darkness,”  should  be  stoned  wherever  met  (1).  Consistent 
in  his  monacophobia,  he  compelled  his  protege,  the  new 
patriarch,  who  had  been  a monk,  to  ascend  the  pulpit  and 
declare  that  he  threw  off  the  cowl,  that  now  he  would  wear 
a nuptial  crown,  that  he  would  eat  meat,  that  he  would  listen 
to  sweet  music  at  the  imperial  table,  &c.  But  the  poor 
man  did  not  long  enjoy  all  these,  for  having  betrayed  some 
of  the  blasphemies  which  Copronymus  had  privately  utter- 
ed against  Christ  and  His  Mother,  he  was  first  exposed  and 
flogged  in  the  circus,  and  then  decapitated  (2).  A Sclavonic 
eunuch  named  Nicetas  was  then  made  patriarch.  The  rest 
of  the  reign  of  Copronymus  was  a continual  horror.  Few 
of  the  Pagan  emperors  equalled  him  in  persecution  of  the 
faithful,  and  many  of  his  prefects  were  worthy  of  their  mas- 
ter. The  prefect  of  Thrace,  having  collected  all  the  monks 

'1)  Acts  of  St.  Stephen  the  Younger.  (2)  Tbeoplianes  and  Cedrtnua. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  471 

and  nuns  in  his  jurisdiction,  ordered  them  to  be  brought  be- 
fore him  at  Ephesus,  and  said:  ‘ Whoever  of  you  desire  to 
obey  the  emperor  and  me,  let  them  put  on  these  garments, 
and  this  very  hour  take  spouses.  All  who  refuse,  shall  have 
their  eyes  plucked  out,  and  be  transported  to  Cyprus.” 
Many  refused,  and  were  martyred.  This  prefect  was  not 
satisfied  with  confiscating  all  the  furniture  of  the  monaster- 
ies and  their  churches,  or  with  throwing  the  images  and 
relics  of  the  saints  to  the  flames.  All  the  works  of  the 
fathers,  upon  which  he  could  lay  hauds,  were  also  burned 

a}. 

In  the  year  767,  Coprouymus  tried  to  win  over  King  Pepin 
of  the  Franks  to  his  heresy.  Wishing  also  to  obtain  the 
restitution  of  the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna,  he  offered  his  son 
Leo  to  a daughter  of  Pepin  in  marriage,  and  expressed  his 
willingness  to  take  the  Exarchate  in  lieu  of  dowry.  Lest 
the  difference  of  religion  should  prove  a bar  to  the  match, 
he  sent  into  France  several  of  his  accommodating  bishops, 
that  an  examination  might  be  had  on  the  image  question, 
and  one  also  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  about  which  the  Greeks  were  complaining  of  the 
Occidentals.  With  the  permission  of  the  Holy  See,  as  we 
know  from  an  Epistle  of  Paul  I.  to  Pepin,  a Synod  was  held 
-at  Gentilly,  near  Paris.  Eginhard,  Ado  of  Vienne,  Rhegin- 
us,  Aimoin,  and  the  Annals  of  the  Franks  (Bertinian),  speak 
of  this  meeting,  but  say  nothing  of  its  result.  However, 
from  the  action  of  the  French  prelates  in  other  Synods,  we 
may  suppose  that  the  Iconoclast  heresy  was  condemned, 
and  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son  affirmed. 

About  this  time,  Cosmas  of  Alexandria,  Theodore  of 
Antioch,  and  Theodore  of  Jerusalem,  held  a Synod,  com- 
posed of  bishops  of  their  patriarchates,  from  which  a 
Synodical  Epistle,  condemning  Iconoclastism,  was  sent  to 
the  Holy  See.  The  document  was  delivered  to  the  Anti-Pope, 
Constantine,  whom  Desiderius  the  Lombard  had  thrust  into 
the  Papal  Chair.  In  769.  Pope  Stephen  III.  held  a Synod  at 
Rome,  in  which,  having  nullified  the  acts  of  the  Anti-Pope 

(1)  lbU 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


472 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Constantine,  the  fathers  condemned  the  Pseudo-Synod  of 
Constantinople  and  its  doctrine  on  images  (1).  In  775,  Con- 
stantine Copronymus  appeared  before  his  Judge,  and  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Leo.  This  monarch  abstained  from 
persecution  for  a while,  but  having  discovered  two  sacred 
images  in  the  possession  of  the  Empress  Irene,  he  renounced 
her  society,  and  commenced  a course  similar  to  that  of  his 
father.  But  he  died  in  780,  leaving  the  throne  to  his  son 
Constantine,  a boy  of  ten  years,  under  the  regency  of  Irene. 
One  of  Irene’s  first  acts  was  the  granting  of  permission  to  ven- 
erate images.  In  the  year  784,  the  new  patriarch,  Tharasius, 
sent  his  Profession  of  Faith  to  Pope  Adrian  I.,  and  begged 
him  to  call  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  The  Byzantine  sov- 
ereigns also  made  this  request,  and  urged  the  Pontiff  to  come 
himself,  if  possible,  to  preside.  In  785,  Pope  Adrian  sent 
a letter  to  the  empress-regent,  in  which  he  urged  her,  if  the 
images  could  not  be  everywhere  immediately  restored,  to 
cause  the  rejection,  at  any  rate,  of  the  Acts  of  the  Pseudo- 
Seventh  Council.  He  also  sent  to  Constantinople  as  his  leg- 
ates for  the  coming  Council,  Peter,  archpriest  of  St.  Peter  s, 
and  Peter,  abbot  of  St.  Saba's,  but  owing  to  the  opposition 
of  many  of  the  imperial  soldiery,  the  Council  did  not  meet 
until  the  year  787  (2). 

The  Seventh  General  Council  was  held  at  Nice  in  Bithynia, 
and  hence  is  sometimes  called  the  Second  Council  of  Nice. 
The  first  session  was  held  on  Sept.  24,  and  after  seven  ses- 
sions at  Nice,  the  eighth  and  last  was  celebrated  at  the  cap- 
ital, for  the  convenience  of  the  sovereigns,  who  wished  to  be 
present.  There  were  in  attendance  350  or  377  bishops.  In 
the  First  Action , after  the  usual  preliminaries,  the  fathers 
considered  the  cases  of  the  bishops  who  had  fallen  into 

(1)  anastasips:  Lift  o.  'Stephen  III. 

(2)  Thoophanos  and  Cedp  'ins  furnish  us  with  an  Interesting  account  of  an  event  which  In- 
duced the  Empress  Irene  to  **ut  an  end,  as  far  as  she  could,  to  Ieonoelaam.  In  TS4,  Paul,  then 
patriarch  of  < onstantinople  being  seriously  111,  abdicated,  and  retired  to  a monastery.  Irend 
was  much  grieved,  and  visit  ug  him,  asked  the  reason  of  his  resignation.  Weeping  bitterly. 
Paul  replied  : “Would  that  never  sat  on  the  eplsconal  throne  or  Constantinople,  since  thla 
church  of  God  is  tvrannicallr  governed,  and  being  separated  from  the  other  sees,  is  devoted  to 
misery  and  execration!'’  M>  "h  Impressed.  Irene  sent  to  him  several  of  the  chief  senators,  to 
whom  he  said  : “ Unless  vo  * collect  a General  Council,  and  correct  your  errors,  there  is  no 
salvation  tor  vou  “ Thev  the^-  asked  him  : “Why  then,  when  you  were  made  patriarch,  did 
jo  \ promise,  at  vour  ordinatt  <n.  to  never  worship  Images?"  Paul  answered : “That  is  the 
ra;i<e  <»r  tr  sir*  that  has  in  neMedmp  to  repentance,  begging  God  that  He  will  not  punish 
me  as  a Pontiff  hithero  mote,  and  (solely  through  fear  of  you)  not  openly  announcing  the 
truth."  Having  said  this,  he  < * pi  red, 


Digitized  by  UjOOQie 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  ANB  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  475 

heresy,  especially  of  Basil  of  Ancyra,  Theodore  of  Myra,  and 
Theodore  of  Amorium,  who  made  a solemn  abjuration.  In 
that  of  Basil,  we  read  the  following  anathematisms : “ To  the 
calumniators  of  Christians,  that  is.  to  the  image-breakers, 
anathema.  To  those  who  turn  against  the  venerable  images 
the  Scriptural  denunciations  of  idols,  anathema.  To  those 
who  do  not  salute  the  holy  and  venerable  images,  anathema. 
To  those  who  compare  the  holy  images  with  those  of  the 
gods,  anathema.  To  those  who  assert  that  Christians  treat 
the  images  as  gods,  anathema.  To  those  who  knowingly 
communicate  with  those  who  dishonor  the  venerable  images, 
anathema.  To  those  who  say  that  any  one  else  than  Christ 
our  Lord  delivered  us  from  idols,  anathema.  To  those  who 
spurn  the  teachings  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  the  Tradition 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  adopting  the  sayings  of  Arius,  Nes- 
torius,  Eutyches,  and  Dioscorus,  that  unless  we  are  taught 
by  the  Old  Testament,  we  do  not  follow  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  nor  the  holy  Synods,  nor  the  Tradition  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  anathema  (1).  To  those  who  say  that  the 
making  of  images  is  a diabolic  invention,  and  not  the 
Tradition  of  the  holy  fathers,  anathema.  To  those  who  dare 
to  assert  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  ever  received  idols, 
anathema/’  After  the  reading  of  these  anathematisms,  Basil- 
ius  and  the  two  Theodores  were  received  into  the  Council. 
Several  other  bishops,  who  had  remained  in  heresy  a long 
time,  were  remanded  to  another  session. 

In  the  Second  Action , after  the  reading  of  the  letters  of 
Pope  Adrian  to  the  sovereigns  and  to  Tharasius  of  Constan- 
tinople, the  Papal  legates  said  : “ Let  the  most  holy  Thara- 
sius, patriarch  of  the  imperial  city,  tell  us  whether  he  con- 
sents or  not  to  the  Letters  of  the  most  holy  Adrian,  Pope 
of  the  elder  Borne/’  Tharasius  replied  : “ When  the  Apostle 
wrote  to  the  Romans,  approving  of  their  zeal  for  the  faith,, 
he  said:  ‘Your  faith  is  spoken  of  in  the  whole  world.*  One 
must  accept  this  testimony,  and  he  who  tries  to  resist  it, 
acts  unadvisedly.  Hence,  bishop  Adrian  of  the  elder  Borne 
being  one  of  those  who  merited  to  be  strengthened  by  the 

(1)  This  anathema  was  inserted  because  the  Iconoclasts  were  fond  of  appealing  to  Scrip- 
ture alone. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


4 74 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


aforesaid  testimony,  wrote  expressly  and  truly  to  our  pious 
sovereigns,  and  to  our  Humility,  well  asserting  that  he  pos- 
sessed the  ancient  Tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And 
we  ourselves,  searching  the  Scriptures,  have  syllogistically 
investigated ; and  what  we  have  already  avowed,  we  do  avow 
and  will  avow,  we  consent  to  and  confirm,  and  we  will  per- 
severe in  the  meaning  of  the  Letters  which  have  been  read, 
receiving  images,  according  to  the  ancient  Tradition  of  our 
fathers.  And  these  we  worship  with  an  affectionate  love,  as 
being  made  in  honor  of  Christ  God,  and  of  the  inviolate  Lady, 
the  holy  Mother  of  God,  and  of  the  Holy  Angels,  and  of  all 
the  Saints,  most  clearly  placing  our  faith  and  service  in  one 
only  God.”  The  Papal  legates  then  asked  the  Council 
whether  it  received  the  letters  of  Adrian,  and  the  fathers 
answered  : “We  follow,  we  receive,  we  admit.”  Then  each 
bishop  declared  that  he  received  the  doctrine  of  respect  to 
images,  “ according  to  the  Synodical  Letters  of  the  most 
Blessed  Adrian.  Pope  of  the  elder  Rome  ” (1). 

In  the  Third  Action  were  read  the  invitations  to  the  Coun- 
cil sent  by  Tharasius  to  the  eastern  patriarchs,  and  their 
excuses  for  not  attending.  These  prelates  give  the  follow- 
ing testimony  to  their  belief  in  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
See : “ It  is  to  be  carefully  born  in  mind  that  no  one  of  our 
bishops  was  present  at  the  Sixth  Holy  Synod,  because  of 
the  tyranny  of  the  barbarians ; but  no  prejudice  accrued 
to  the  Synod  oil  account  of  this  fact,  nor  was  it  prevented 
from  establishing  and  manifesting  the  right  dogmas  of 
truth  ; especially  since  the  most  Holy  and  Apostolic  Roman 
Pope  agreed  with  it,  and  was  present  through  his  legates. 
And  now,  most  holy  fathers,  with  the  help  of  God,  the 
same  will  happen.  For  if  the  faith  of  that  Synod  then  re- 
sounded to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  so  will  be  preached  in  every 
place  under  the  sun  that  of  the  Synod  now  assembled,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  and  your  intervention,  and  that  of  him 
who  rules  the  See  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles. 

(1)  After  the  dissolution  of  the  Synod,  the  patriarch  Tharasius  thus  wrote  to  Pope  Adrian, 
concerning  the  Pontifical  Letters:  **When  we  had  all  sat  down,  we  made  Christ  our 
Head  For  in  the  Holy  See  there  was  the  Holy  Gospel,  teaching  all  the  holy  men  who  had 
met.  Judge  just  judgments Judge  between  the  Holy  Church  and  the  novelties  which  have 
been  introduced.'  And  when  the  letters  of  your  Fraternal  Holiness  were  first  read,  all  were 
awaiting  them  as  spiritual  food  in  the  royal  supper  which  Christ  was  preparing,  through 
vour  letters,  for  the  banqueters.” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  47S 

In  the  Fourth  Action  were  read  many  passages  from  the 
ancient  fathers,  approving  the  use  of  images.  Then  were 
read  the  Epistle  of  Pope  Gregory  III.  to  Germanus  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  several  letters  of  Germanus.  New  anath- 
emas were  pronounced  on  the  Iconoclasts,  and  a Profession 
of  Faith  was  signed  by  all  the  bishops.  The  Papal  legates 
subscribed  first,  then  Tharasius,  then  the-  vicars  of  the 
other  patriarchs,  finally  the  bishops. 

In  the  Fifth  Action , it  was  shown  that  the  Iconoclast  er- 
rors were  derived  from  the  Jews.  Saracens,  and  Manicheans. 
The  Papal  legates  issued  the  following  decree  : “ To  the 
most  Holy  Tharasius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the  new 
Pome  : We,  Peter,  Archpriest  of  the  most  holy  Church  of 
the  Holy  and  praiseworthy  Apostle  Peter,  and  Peter.  Priest 
and  Abbot  of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Saba ; both  holding  the 
place  of  Adrian,  Pope  of  the  elder  Rome  ; do  deem  it  proper, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  all  of  us,  yea.  according  to  the 
ancient  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  all  the  holy 
fathers  teach  us.  that  there  be  brought  among  us  an  image 
to  be  revered,  and  that  we  do  salute  it And  we  sug- 

gest another  Chapter  : that  all  signatures,  which  have  been 
given  against  venerable  images,  be  anathematized  or  given 
to  the  flames.”  The  Holy  Synod  answered : “Let  it  be 
brought;  let  it  be  so  done.” 

In  the  Sixth  Action , the  Iconoclast  Definition  of  the 
Pseudo-Seventh  Synod  was  read,  and  condemned,  chapter 
by  chapter.  On  their  arrival  at  a passage  where  it  was 
asserted  that  only  one  image  should  be  venerated,  namely, 
that  in  which  the  Saviour  placed  Himself  under  the  appear- 
ances of  bread  and  wine,  the  fathers  declared  that  this  form 
of  expression  was  foreign  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  For,  although  the  fathers  have  called  the  bread 
and  wine  figures  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  this  say- 
ing, was  meant  in  regard  to  them,  as  they  are  before  the 
consecration  ; after  the  consecration,  they  are  not  an  image, 
but  really  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord.  The  faith  of 
the  Iconoclasts  in  the  Real  Presence  was  sound,  however 
as  can  be  shown  by  the  context  of  the  Definition  and  by 
the  very  reasons  they  alleged  for  calling  the  Eucharist  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


476 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


only  image  of  Christ  (1).  The  following  are  the  passages 
which  some  Protestant  authors  adduce  as  showing  that  the 
Iconoclasts  denied  Transubstantiation  : ‘Let  those  rejoice 
and  exult,  and  confidently  act,  who,  with  sincere  souls,  make 
the  true  image  of  Christ,  and  desire  and  worship  it,  and  offer 
it  for  the  salvation  of  body  and  soul ; the  one  which  the 
most  holy  Immolator  and  our  God gave  to  His  minis- 

ters as  a figure  and  memorial  of  His  own  passion.  For  when 
He  was  about  to  deliver  Himself  up  to  a memorable  and  life- 
giving  death,  He  blessed  the  bread  which  he  had  taken,  and 
giving  thanks,  He  broke  it,  and  giving  it,  said  : ‘Take  and  eat 
ye  this,  in  the  remission  of  sins ; this  is  My  Body.’  And  in 
like  manner,  giving  the  chalice.  He  said  : ‘ This  is  My  Blood; 
do  this  in  commemoration  of  Me.’  As  though,  under  heav- 
en, there  was  no  other  figure  or  form  He  could  choose  to 
represent,  like  an  image,  His  Incarnation.”  But  in  these 
words,  the  Iconoclasts  do  not  call  the  Eucharist  a mere  im- 
age. They  regarded  the  species  of  bread  and  wine  as  an 
image  of  Christ,  when  visibly  and  externally  considered ; 
but  they  also  believed  that  the  Eucharist  was  the  substance 
of  the  Body  of  Christ,  when  considered  intrinsically  and  as 
to  its  invisible  nature;  when,  that  is,  it  is  an  object  of  faith, 
not  of  the  senses.  For,  immediately  after  the  quoted  w ords, 
they  say : “ As  we  have  said,  the  Lord  Jesus  so  operated 
that  as  He  deified  the  Flesh  He  assumed,  by  its  very  union, 
with  a sanctification  as  to  nature,  so  He  unshed  the  Euchar- 
istic bread,  by  the  advent  of  the  holy  Spirit  to  be  sanctified 
as  a true  image  of  His  natural  Flesh,  to  be  made  the  Divine 
Body , by  means  of  the  priest , who  separating  the  oblation 
from  the  common  (kind),  causes  it  to  attain  sanctification.” 
As  the  Seventh  Council  said  (2),  the  Iconoclasts,  ‘ dismiss- 
ing what  was  false,  touched  the  truth  somewhat,  when  they 
said  : ‘ to  be  made  the  Divine  Body/  If  it  is  only  the  image 
of  the  Body,  it  cannot  be  the  Divine  Body.”  But  not  only 
does  the  context  of  the  objected  passage  show  the  faith  of  the 
Iconoclasts  in  the  Real  Presence ; the  same  is  proved  by  the 
very  reasons  they  assign  for  styling  the  Eucharist  an  image. 

See  Alexandras  DiVsvO.  JV.  Cent.  8. 

<i>)  “•K'l* -<tn  *•'  thr  connin', th  .mimiwi  hv  Rnit"mriite*  re^d  to  and  approved 

the  Tin  r Action  *>. 


Digitized  by  y.ooQie 


ICONOCLAST  HERtSY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  477 

Alexandre  thus  describes  their  ratiocination  : “ Every  image 
which  Represents  the  Human  Nature  of  Christ,  separate 
from  the  Deity,  favors  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  which  divides 
the  Natures,  and  introduces  an  addition  of  Person.  But 
every  image  of  Christ  represents  the  Human  Nature  sepa- 
rate from  the  Deity,  for  the  uncircumscribed  Deity  cannot  be 
pictured.  Hence  it  is  sacrilegious  to  make  such  an  image. 
Besides,  they  said,  an  external  image,  which  is  a thing  sub- 
sisting by  itself,  cannot  represent  its  prototype,  unless  as 
also  by  itself  subsisting.  But  the  Human  Nature  of  Christ 
does  not  subsist  by  itself ; it  is  sustained  by  the  Person  of 
the  Word.  It  therefore  cannot  be  represented,  unless  by  an 
image  of  the  same  condition,  that  is,  which  does  not  subsist 
in  itself,  but  is  sustained  by  the  substance  of  the  Son  of  God, 
to  which  it  is  personally  united.  Now  the  only  image  of 
Christ,  of  this  kind,  is  the  Eucharist.  No  other  image  there- 
fore must  be  made  or  revered.  And  indeed,  in  their  Defini- 
tion, the  Iconoclast  synodals  say  : “ As  that  which  He  took 
from  us  is  the  matter  alone  of  a human  substance,  perfect 
throughout,  not  properly  figuring  a subsisting  person,  in 
order  that  no  addition  of  person  ma}r  accrue  to  the  Divinity  ; 
so  He  ordered  to  be  offered,  the  image,  that  is,  the  principal 
matter,  the  substance  of  bread,  not  figuring  the  form  of 

man.  lest  idolatry  might  be  introduced And  as 

the  Flesh  of  the  Lord,  endowed,  according  to  nature,  with 
a mind,  is  anointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Divinity, 
so  the  divinely-given  image  of  His  Flesh,  that  is,  the  Di- 
vine Bread,  is  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  also  the  Chal- 
ice, holding  the  life  Blood  from  His  side.  This,  therefore, 
is  shown  to  be  the  true  image  of  the  dispensation,  which 
was  made  in  the  Flesh  of  Christ  our  God,  which  He,  the 
true  Yivifier  and  Former  of  nature,  gave  to  us  with  His  own 
voice.”  The  reasoning  of  the  Iconoclasts  was  captious  in 
the  extreme,  for  although  the  image  of  a living  man  does 
not  represent  his  soul,  unless  by  implication,  yet  it  by  no 
means  figures  a body  separated  from  its  soul.  Just  so  an 
image  of  Christ,  though  it  does  not.  and  cannot,  figure  the 
uncircumscribed  Deity  to  our  senses,  yet  it  does  not  rep 
resent  ina  human  nature  of  n;ir  Lord  separated  from  the 
Divine.  That  il..*  J« heal  the  doctrine  of  the 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


478 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Beal  Presence,  is  also  evident  from  the  absence  of  any  re- 
buke on  this  point  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  wTio  took 
up  the  pen  against  them.  The  faith  of  the  Church  at  that 
time,  in  this  matter,  was  just  what  it  always  waa.  and  is  to- 
day. The  reader  will  pardon  us,  if  we  are  leaving  our  prov- 
ince, to  adduce  the  following  passage  of  St.  John  Dama- 
scene (1):  “How  shall  this  be  done  unto  me,  said  the  Holy 
Virgin,  when  I do  not  know  man?  The  Archangel  Gabriel 
replied  : The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee.  And  do 
you  now  also  ask  how  the  bread  and  wine  joined  with  water, 
become  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ?  I answer  you  : The 
Holy  Ghost  comes,  and  effects  that  which  exceeds  the  facul- 
ty of  prayer  and  the  understanding  of  the  mind Cer- 

tainly, the  Body  truly  united  to  the  Divinity  is  that  Body 
which  was  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin  ; not  that  the  Body  de- 
scended from  heaven,  but  because  the  bread  and  wine  are 
changed  into  the  Bod}’  and  Blood  of  God.  If  you  ask  how 
this  is  done,  let  it  be  enough  for  you  to  hear  that  it  is  done 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  just  as,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Lord  made,  from  the  Holy  Mother  of  God,  Flesh  for  Him- 
self and  in  Himself Nor  is  anything  plainer  to  us 

than  that  the  word  of  God  is  true,  efficacious,  and  omnipo- 
tent ; the  mauner  is  such  that  no  reason  can  penetrate  it.  But 
it  would  not  be  futile  to  say  that  as  br  *ad,  in  food  and  wine 
and  water  in  drink,  are  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  receiver,  and  are  made  into  another  body,  so  the  bread 
and  wine  and  water  of  Proposition  are  changed,  by  the  in- 
vocation and  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  into  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ ; nor  are  they  two,  but  one  and  the  same 

Nor  are  the  bread  and  (vine  a figure  of  the  Body 

and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  the  very  Body  itself  of  the  Lord , joined 
to  his  Divinity , for  the  Lord  Himself  said:  4 This  is  ’ not  a 
figure  of,  but,  ‘ My  Body  ; ’ not  a figure  of,  but,  ‘ My  Blood.'  ” 
In  the  Seventh  Action  was  issued  a Definition  of  Faith 
receiving  and  confirming  the  previous  six  (Ecumenical 
Councils.  It  was  then  decreed  that  4 the  figure  of  the  life-giv- 

(i  Orthnftnr  Faith,  b.  3,  c.  14  . The  Damascene  Is  ranked  by  the  Greeks  with  Peter Lom 
bard  and  St.  Thomxs  of  Aquin.  He  died  about  7(X). 


Digitized  by  OjOOQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  479 

ing  cross,  and  the  venerable  and  holy  images,  both  painted 
and  of  stone,  or  of  other  proper  material,  should  Ire  tret  trp  in 
the  churches,  and  put  on  the  sacred  vessels  and  vestments, 
on  the  walls  and  tables,  in  houses  and  along  the  streets : 
that  is.  the  image  of  our  Lord  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  of  our  inviolate  Lady,  the  Holy  Mother  of  God,  and  of 
the  honorable  angels,  and  of  all  the  saints/’  It  was  declared 
that  the  souls  of  the  faithful  are  excited,  by  the  use  of  im- 
ages, “ to  a remembrance  of  their  prototypes,  to  a desire 
(to  imitate  them),  and  to  give  them  a respectful  devotion  ; 
not,  however,  to  a true  worship  (latria),  which  is  due  to  the 
Divine  Nature  alone  ; so  that  the  homage  of  incense  and 
lights  should  be  extended  to  them,  just  as  to  the  precious 
and  life-giving  cross  and  to  the  holy  gospels,  and  other  sa- 
cred objects,  as  was  the  pious  custom  of  the  ancients.  For 
the  honor  paid  to  an  image  is  shown  to  the  original/’ 

The  Seventh  General  Council  edited  twenty-two  Canons 
for  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  which  had 
become  somewhat  relaxed  during  the  Iconoclast  troubles. 
The  1st  Canon  confirms  the  ancient  ones,  viz , the  Apostol- 
ic, and  those  of  the  six  preceding  (Ecumenical  Councils. 
This  Canon  was  not  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See,  because 
the  Pontiffs  always  refused  to  recognize  other  than  a certain 
number  of  the  so-called  Apostolic  Canons  (1).  Again,  the 
See  of  Rome  always  rejected  the  Constantinopolitan  Canons, 
the  28th  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  Trullan.  The  2d  Canon 
decrees  that  no  one  can  be  made  a bishop  who  has  not  the 
Psalter  by  memory,  and  who  is*  not  thoroughly  versed  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  3d  condemns  the  choosing  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  by  princes.  The  4th  prohibits  bishops 
from  receiving  money  or  any  kind  of  presents  from  their 
clergy,  “ because  the  children  should  not  gather  riches  for 
he  parents,  but  the  parents  for  the  children/’  The  7th 
Canon  ordered  that  in  all  churches  which  had  been  dedicat- 
ed, during  the  Iconoclast  troubles,  without  the  usual  depos- 
it of  sacred  relics,  a remedy  of  the  defect  should  at  once  be 
supplied  ; and  commanded  also  that,  hereafter,  any  bishop 

(l)  The  Holv  See  received  the  flrst  50  of  these  Canons,  excepting  the  46th  and  47th,  on  the 
Baptism  of  Heretics,  as  was  decreed  by  Stephen  HI.,  in  Syn.  Lat.,  act.  4,  and  by  Urban  II.  In 
Epistle  17,  givtn  by  Gratlan,  Dist.  32. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


480 


STUDIES  W' CHURCH  HISTORY.  ’ 


who  would  presume  to  dedicate  a church  without  the  use 
of  relics,  should  be  deposed.  The  11th  Canon  decreed  the 
appointment,  in  every  church  and  monastery,  of  a steward 
or  administrator.  The  12th  Canon  deposed  any  bishop  or 
abbot  who  would  in  any  way  alienate  the  revenues  of  eccle- 
siastical property.  The  17th  Canon  forbade  the  erection  of 
any  church  or  ecclesiastical  edifice,  the  money  for  which 
had  not  been  certainly  provided.  The  other  Canons  are  of 
minor  importance. 

In  previous  chapters  we  have  been  obliged  to  defend  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  over  General  Councils,  from 
the  attacks  of  those  who  contend  that,  in  several  instances, 
the  bishops  of  the  Universal  Church,  in  General  Council  as- 
sembled, have  subjected  the  Dogmatic  Epistles  of  the  Popes 
to  a juridical  examination.  Now,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the 
letters  of  Cmlestine  I.  to  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus,  and 
in  that  of  the  Letter  of  Leo  the  Great  to  Flavian,  read  in  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  so  in  the  case  of  the  Letters  of  Adrian 
I.  to  the  patriarch  Tharasius,  and  to  the  sovereigns  Irene  and 
Constantine,  writers  of  the  Gallican  school  have  insisted  that 
the  fathers  of  the  Seventh  Council  submitted  them  to  Synod- 
ical scrutiny  and  judicial  criticism,  bef  re  finally  accepting 
them.  As  in  previous  instances,  so  here  we  have  as 
opponents  the  Author  of  the  Defence  of  the  Declaration  of 
the  French  Clergy  in  1682  (1),  and  the  learned  Cardinal  de 

(1)  With  regard  to  this  De/enoe,  generally  ascribed  to  the  great  Bossuet,  the  reader  will 
pleasenote  the  following  remarks  or  the  Marquis  Mallei  (Literary  Oltuer rat  it n#a,  v.  5,  p.  4): 
r‘Why  did  be  ( Bossuet ) wait  so  long,  before  publishing  this  book?  Why  did  he  not.  at  least 
when  dying,  advise  its  publication  ? It  would  seem,  either  that  he  had  not  yet  perfected  It,  or 
that  he  was  not  so  well  pleased  with  it  as'  with  his  other  books.  That  it  has  been  Inter- 
polated by  another  hand,  many  suspect,  from  the  fact  that  It  remained  bidden  for  2d  years 
after  his  death  (and  it  was  written  22  years  before  he  died),  beingpublished  only  In  ITl’O,  when 
an  angry  faction  was  trying,  by  every  art,  not  only  to  restrict,  but  to  annihilate  the  Pon- 
tifical ]n>wer.  Are  we  to  believe  that  Bossuet  wrote  the  12th  chapter  of  this  book,  where  be 

himself  is  so  praised,  and  in  which  his  Exposition  of  Faith  is  so  exalted  ? How 

can  we  ascribe  certain  sentiments  of  this  book  to  the  prelate  who.  in  a discourse  to  the 
Assembly  of  the  Clergy  in  lttH2,  used  this  language:  ‘ Let  it  not  be  said  that  the  ministry 
of  St.  Peter  ended  with  himself;  that  cannot  end.  which  has  to  sustain  an  eternal  Church. 
Peter  will  alwavs  sneak  in  his  See,  as  was  declared  by  bOO  bishops  in  the  Council  of  Chalce- 

dou The  Roman  Church,  taught  by  St.  Peter,  and  by  his  successors,  knows  no 

heresy:  she  is  ever  a virgin,  and  the  Roman  faith  is  that  of  the  Church.1  With  these  sentiments 
accordsbadly  the  saying  that  the  bishops  have  the  right  of  Judging.  In  first  instance,  of 
questions  of  faith,  and  that,  when  afterwards  the  matter  is  brought  before  the  Pope,  and  he 
sends  his  decision  straight  to  the  bishops,  they  can,  even  without  another  Council,  see 
whether  It  is  proper,  and  approve  or  reject  ft,  as  they  deem  fit.  For,  if  such  is  the  case, 
if  both  the  first  and  last  sentence  belong  to  the  bishops,  what  remains  for  the  Pope?  If  his 
Definition  is  to  be  thus  treated,  his  authority  is  no  greater  than  that  of  some  curate  or 
private  doctor,  whose  opinion  might  be  asked.  We  cannot,  understand  how  such  a senti- 
ment could  come  from  an  author  who,  in  this  very  work,  teaches  that,  according  to  the 
ancient  maxims,  serious  causes  of  religion  should,  from  every  part  of  the  Catholic  world, 
be  taken  to  Rome,  and  that  every  Christian  Church  owes  oJteillence  to  the  Roman  PontifT. 
In  fine,  in  reference  to  some  passages  of  this  work,  we  might  say  what  the  learned  Arch- 
bishop of  Embrun,  Mousig.  Tend n (afterwards  Cardinal),  said  in  regard  to  another:  *Tb« 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  481 

la  Luzerne.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  2d  Action  of  the 
Seventh  Council,  the  Papal  legates  demanded  of  the  patri- 
arch Tharasius  whether  he  accepted  the  letters  of  Pope 
Adrian.  From  the  answer  of  the  patriarch,  our  opponents 
gather  that  he  assented  to  the  doctrine  taught  in  those  letters, 
not  because  of  the  authority  of  the  writer,  but  simply  because 
of  the  respect  due  to  the  utterances  of  a Church  which  had 
been  so  highly  praised  by  St  Paul.  The  legates  then  asked 
of  the  fathers  of  the  Council,  “ whether,  or  not , they  accepted 
the  Letters’  of  Adrian.  In  the  phrase,  “ or  not,”  says  La 
Luzerne,  lies  the  proof  that  the  decree  of  the  Pontiff  was 
not  regarded  as  irreformable.  In  reference  to  the  mind  of 
Tharasius  when  he  answered  the  legates,  his  own  words  to 
Pope  Adrian  show  that  he  respected,  in  the  person  of  the 
Pontiff,  the  teaching  authority  of  the  Church.  “ When  we 
had  all  sat  down,"  he  says,  “ we  made  Christ  our  head. 
For  in  the  Holy  See  there  was  the  Holy  Gospel,  teaching  all 
the  holy  men  who  had  met : ‘Judge  just  judgments  judge 
between  the  holy  Church  and  the  novelties  which  have  been 
introduced.  And  when  the  Letters  of  your  Fraternal  Holi- 
ness were  first  read,  all  were  awaiting  them  as  spiritual  food  in 
the  royal  supper  which  Christ  was  preparing,  through  your 
Letters,  for  the  banqueters,  and  in  which,  like  an  eye,  you 
manifested  the  whole  body  of  rectitude  and  the  way  of  truth. 
Thus  therefore  the  separated  members  were  joined  together, 
thus  true  constancy  was  confirmed,  thus  the  Catholic  Church 
acquired  unity.”  Tharasius  furnishes,  in  his  reply  to  the 
legates,  no  argument  for  our  adversaries,  unless  they  are 
willing  to  admit  that  he  thought  he  was  free  to  differ  from  a 
Definition  of  Faith  made  by  a General  Council.  For,  just 
as  he  said  he  had  syllogistically  examined  into  the  agree* 
ment  of  the  Pontiff  s Letter  with  the  Scriptures  and  the 
teachings  of  the  Fathers,  so,  although  anathema  had  been 
pronounced  against  the  Iconoclasts  in  the  2d  Action , 
nevertheless,  in  the  4th,  Tharasius  persuaded  the  bishops  to 
adduce  in  favor  of  their  teaching  the  passages  of  Scripture 

posthumous  works  of  Monsltf.  Bossuet  can  never  have  the  authority  of  those  published  by 
himself.  The  posthumous  ones  appear  to  have  been  written  In  order  to  make  the  author 
contradict  himself;  so  much  so,  that  If  Bossuet  is  the  author,  we  may  believe,  either  that 
he  did  not  deem  them  worthy  of  the  lijfht,  or  that  he  did  not  revise  them  with  that  care, 
which  made  his  pen  formidable  to  heretics.’  ” 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


482 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8T0RY. 


and  sayings  of  the  fathers  which  militated  against  the  errors 
already  condemned.  This  he  did,  not  that  the  condemnation 
needed  any  corroboration,  but,  as  he  explained,  ‘ that  by 
drawing  from  them  (the  Scriptures  and  Tradition),  we  may 
each  give  drink  to  the  flocks  committed  to  our  care.  Thus 
our  voice  will  go  into  every  land,  and  the  strength  of  our 
words  to  the  ends  of  the  earth/'  We  may  also  observe  with 
Palma  (1),  that  our  adversaries  should  show  that  the  bishops 
of  the  Seventh  Council  juridically  examined  the  Letters  of 
Adrian  ref  ore  they  accepted  them  : “And  even  though  we 

grant,  which  cannot  be  concluded  from  the  words  of  Thara- 
sius,  that  he  only  assented  to  the  Letters  of  Adrian  because 
the  never-failing  faith  of  Christ  is  in  the  succession  of  the 
Roman  Pontiffs,  and  not  because  the  definitions  of  each  Pope, 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  are  infallible  ; yet  the  testi- 
mony of  Tharasius  would  not  show  that  the  Council  really 
examined  the  letters  of  Adrian/* 

In  further  illustration  of  our  position,  we  would  notice 
the  Letters  written  by  Pope  Adrian  before  the  Councils 
which  certainly  show  that  he  regarded  Iconocdasm  as  al- 
ready condemned  by  himself,  and  that  he  wished  the  Coun- 
cil merely  to  carry  his  sentence  into  execution.  We  shall 
then  look  into  the  action  of  the  bishops  on  the  matter.  In 
his  first  Epistle  to  the  sovereigns,  the  Pontiff  says  of  St 
Peter  : “ He  then,  who  was  so  pre-eminently  honored,  was 
worthy  to  confess  the  faith  upon  which  is  founded  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  blessiug  of  reward  followed  the 
blessing  of  the  confession,  the  preaching  of  which  illumi- 
nated the  Holy  Universal  Church For  the  very 

Prince  of  the  Apostles,  Blessed  Peter,  who  first  sat  in  the 
Apostolic  See,  left  the  principality  of  the  Apostolate  and  of 
pastoral  care  to  his  successors,  who  are  ever  to  sit  in  that 
Most  Holy  See;  and  to  them  he  left,  by  divine  command, 
the  power  of  authority,  just  as  it  had  been  given  to  him  by 
the  Lord  God  our  Saviour.  According  to  the  Tradition 
handed  down  by  them,  we  ought  to  venerate  the  sacred 
image  of  Christ,  that  of  His  most  holy  Mother,  and  those 
of  the  Apostles  and  of  all  the  saints I demand,  and 

(1)  Lectures , c.  75. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


IC0N0GLA8T  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  48& 

I adjure  you.  that  you  order  the  same  sacred  images  to  be 
restored  as  of  old  in  your  imperial  and  God-preserved  city, 
and  throughout  all  the  Greek  dominions  ; observing  the 
Tradition  of  this  our  most  holy  Roman  Church,  rejecting 
and  spurning  the  wiles  of  the  heretical  and  the  impious, 
that  you  may  be  received  in  the  embraces  of  this  our  Holy, 
Catholic,  Apostolic,  and  irreprehensible  Roman  Church.’* 
It  is  evident  then  that  the  Pontiff  ordered  the  restoration  of 
all  the  images  before  the  holding  of  the  Council ; he  styles 
as  heretics  those  who  refuse  to  obey ; which  certainly  doea 
not  indicate,  on  his  part,  a willingness  to  subject  his  Let- 
ters to  a Synodical  examination.  And  he  finally  commands 
that  the  Pseudo-Seventh  Council  shall  be  immediately  con- 
demned, in  the  presence  of  his  legates.  In  his  Epistle  to 
the  patriarch  Tharasius,  Pope  Adrian  explicitly  declares 
that  if  his  commands  are  not  obeyed,  the  patriarch  will  be 
deprived  of  his  throne.  Here  therefore  is  another  instance, 
to  be  joined  with  those  we  have,  on  other  occasions,  ad- 
duced, of  a Roman  Pontiff  prescribing  what  shall  be  done 
iu  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  and  of  his  regarding  as  irre- 
formable  that  which  he  has  already  decreed  in  the  pre- 
mises. And  how  did  the  Seventh  Council  receive  these 
Pontifical  injunctions?  By  obeying  them,  and  without  any 
previous  inquisition  into  their  authoritativeness  or  their 
orthodoxy.  In  the  very  first  Action , it  was  ordered  that  the 
Iconoclast  bishops  should  be  received  by  the  Council  only 
as  heretics,  or  as  persons  abjuring  heresy,  and  they  were 
commanded  to  proffer  certain  anathematisms  against  their 
former,  errors  and  against  the  Pseudo-Council.  This  is 
shown  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  Basil  of  Ancyra,  read 
in  the  1st  Action  : “ I reject,  and  with  my  whole  heart  an- 
athematize the  Synod  called  the  Seventh,  which  was  con- 
voked in  obstinacy  and  in  madness.”  And  shortly  after,  he 
declared : “ Anathema  to  the  calumniators  of  Christians,  that 
is,  to  the  image-breakers.”  And  in  the  Confession  of  Theo- 
dore of  Ammorium,  was  pronounced  : ‘‘Anathema  to  those 

who  do  not  revere  the  venerable  images anathema 

to  all  who  hesitate,  and  do  not  heartily  declare  that  they 
venerate  the  holy  images.”  It  is  evident  therefore  that  the 
Fathers  of  the  Seventh  Council,  not  only  did  not  think  that 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


484 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Letters  of  Pope  Adrian  were  to  be  juridically  examined, 
but  that  they  regarded  it  as  their  first*  duty  to  obey  his  or- 
ders, and  to  receive  his  doctrine. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  Seventh  General  Council,  the 
Holy  See  received  a copy  of  its  Ads , and  a letter  from  the 
sovereigns  Irene  and  Constantine,  requesting  their  con- 
firmation. Pope  Adrian  ordered  the  Ads  to  be  translated 
into  Latin,  and  to  be  deposited  in  the  Pontifical  Archives, 
but  postponed  the  confirmation  to  a later  date.  His  wish 
was  to  send  a copy  of  the  Latin  version  of  these  Ads  to  the 
French  churches,  that  they  might  receive  the  attention  of 
the  many  learned  men  who  graced  the  court  of  Charle- 
magne. This  laudable  design  of  the  Pontiff  was  the  occa- 
sion of  considerable  trouble,  and  has  given  rise  to  a dispute 
as  to  the  opinions  of  the  French  and  German  bishops  of 
that  day,  in  regard  to  the  veneration  of  images.  It  hap- 
pened that  the  party  to  whom  had  been  committed  the  task 
of  translating  the  Ads  of  the  Seventh  Council,  so  misrep- 
resented the  teachings  of  the  members  of  that  Synod,  that, 
upon  reading  his  version,  the  French  bishops  were  led  to 
believe  that  they  were  called  upon  to  give,  to  images  an  ex- 
cessive, and  even  idolatrous,  devotion.  Hence  it  was  that, 
^bout  the  year  790,  there  was  issued  a work,  under  the 
name  of  Charlemagne,  which  severely  attacked  the  Seventh 
•Council.  This  work,  being  composed  of  four  books, 
And  purporting  to  be  by  Charlemagne,  is  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Caroline  Books.  In  consequence,  also,  of  this 
false  idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  Seventh  Council,  its  decree 
on  image-veneration  was  condemned  by  a Synod  of  French 
and  German  bishops,  held  at  Frankfort  in  794.  Protestant 
writers  have  seized  upon  the  Caroline  Boolcs  and  the  decrees 
of  the  Synod  of  Frankfort,  as  evidence  of  the  Iconoclast  be- 
lief of  the  French  and  German  churches  in  the  eighth  cen- 
tury. Some  Catholic  authors,  on  the  contrary,  have  ascribed 
the  Caroline  Books  to  a heretic  of  the  time  of  Charlemagne, 
while  others,  also  Catholic,  have  thought  the  author  to 
have  been  a heretic  of  the  16th  century  (1).  It  can  be  shown, 

(1)  Alexandre.  In  his  />i*w.  C,  Cent.  8,  proves,  against  Surlus  and  Bellarmlne,  that  these 
B<x >k$  were  written  either  by  Charlemagne,  or  by  his  order.  He  argues,  firstly,  from  the 
Preface , where  the  author  speaks  of  “ his  father,  king  Pepin.”  Secondly,  from  a Synod  of 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  485 


however,  that  the  author  of  the  Caroline  Books  was  no 
Iconoclast;  that  he  rejected  the  Seventh  Council’s  decree 
because  he  falsely,  or  rather,  mistakenly,  supposed  that 
the  worship  of  Latvia , due  to  God  alone,  had  been  au- 
thorized, by  that  Synod,  as  appropriate  to  images.  The 
reader  must  know  that  Charlemagne  and  his  compatriots 
were,  about  that  time,  so  disposed  in  mind  towards  the 
Byzantine  court,  as  to  be  ready  to  believe  that  its  fickle- 
ness and  levity  were  capable  of  any  extravagance.  During 
the  early  days  of  her  regency,  the  Empress  Irene  had  ' 
asked  of  Charlemagne  the  hand  of  his  daughter  Rotrude  for 
her  son  Constantine;  the  offer  had  been  accepted,  and  oaths 
of  fidelity  interchanged.  But  in  788,  Irene  changed  her 
mind,  and  compelled  Constantine,  then  in  his  eighteenth 
year,  to  marry  an  Armenian  princess.  Such  a slight 
was  not  easily  to  be  forgotten,  nor  were  its  perpe- 
trators likely  to  be  charitably  regarded  (1).  When  there- 
fore it  was  reported  that  the  “Synod  of  the  Greeks” 
had  encouraged  idolatry,  personal  pique  led  Charlemagne 
to  lend  a facile  ear  to  the  rumor.  In  these  circumstances 
were  issued  the  Caroline  Books . The  French  bishops  were 
greatly  influenced  by  the  Latin  version  of  a saying  of  Con- 
stantine, a Cyprian  bishop,  which  appeared,  in  the  reports 
of  the  Seventh  Council  received  by  them,  couched  in  these 
terms:  *4 1 receive  and  honorably  embrace  the  sacred  and 
venerable  images,  according  to  the  service  of  adoration 
which  I give  to  the  consubstantial  and  life-giving  Trinity; 
and  I separate  from  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  and  subject  to  anathema,  those  who  do  not  thus 
think”  (2).  The  word  “ adoration,”  so  susceptible  of  various 
meanings,  and  several  weak  arguments,  used  by  the  Seventh 
Synod,  which,  by  the  way,  was  not  yet  regarded  as  (Ecumen- 

ParJs,  under  Louis  the  Debonnaire,  speaking  of  Charlemagne  as  the  author.  Thirdly,  from 
Hlncmar  of  Rheims,  citing  verbally  the  2hth  Chapter  of  Book  4,  and  ascribing  it  to  the 
aame  emperor.  Fourthly,  from  the  Vatican  vSS.,  bearing  the  name  of  Charlemagne. 

(1)  In  after  years,  ambition  led  Charlemagne  to  pocket  this  afTront.  In  802.  be  vainly  of- 
fered Irene  his  own  hand,  that  he  might  unite  the  Eastern  and  Western  Empires.  Irene 
was  willing,  but  her  courtiers  were  rot. 

(2)  In  the  original  Greek  Act)*,  the  saying  of  bishop  Constantine  reads  very  differently : 

%%  I receive  and  honor  the  holy  Images,  but  I give  only  to  the  Supreme  Trinity  the  adoration 
of  worship  (iatria).”  Pope  Adrian,  in  his  Apologetic  Epittlc  to  Charlemagne,  explains 
the  strong  expressions  of  this  prelate.  Just  converted  from  Iconoclasm.  by  bis  natural  wish 

- to  remove  any  doubts  as  to  his  orthodoxy  For  the  rest,  says  the  Pontiff,  the  Council  well 
understood  the  sense  of  his  emphatic  words.  See  chap.  0 of  the  Epistle. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


486 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ical,  not  having  been  confirmed  by  the  Homan  Pontiff,  all 
joined  to  the  sentence  of  the  Cyprian  bishop,  and  his  own 
political  prejudices,  induced  the  Carolinian  author  to  reject 
the  Seventh  Council’s  decree  as  he  understood  it.  But  it  is 
evident  that  he  did  not  reject  the  veneration  of  images,  as 
it  is  understood  and  encouraged  by  the  Catholic  Church. 
In  Book  I.,  c.  2,  we  certainly  read  : “ But  in  images,  made 
by  the  labor  of  artists,  which  often  excite  admiration  in  the 
spectator,  on  account  of  the  remembrance  of  deeds  done, 
but  always  draw  the  worshiper  into  error;  for  it  is  not  a 
slight  error  to  adore,  with  the  service  of  religion,  other 
than  Him  who  said  : ‘ rIlie  Lord  thy  God  thou  shalt  adore, 

and  Him  alone  shalt  thou  serve.’  ” But  we  also  read,  in 
Book  II.,  c.  31.  while  the  author  is  comparing  the  legitimate 
with  the  pretended  Seventh  Council.  “ The  one  despised 
and  removed  the  images  forever  from  the  churches;  the 
other,  not  only  decreed  that  they  should  be  retained,  but 
commanded  that  they  should  be  suppliantly  adored.  The 
one  threw  them  to  the  flames  ; the  other  honors  them  with 
incense.  The  one  refused  even  to  look  upon  them  ; the 
other  would  not  cease  to  embrace  them.  The  one  dug 
away  the  ornaments  of  the  ancient  walls;  the  other  honors 
them,  newly  restored,  with  offered  lights.  The  one  wished 
them  to  be  abominated  ; the  other  allows  them  to  be  kissed. 
The  one  anathematized  their  possessors  ; the  other 
those  who  do  not  adore  them.  Now  since  these  two  evils 
are  contrary,  and  both  far  from  the  truth,  let  us  take  the 
royal  path,  walking,  according  to  the  Apostle,  neither  to 
the  right  nor  to  the  left;  not  removing  the  images,  accord- 
ing to  the  one,  nor  adoring  them,  with  the  other ; but  ador- 
ing God  alone,  and  venerating  His  saints,  according  to  tho 
ancient  Tradition  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the  Church,  keeping 
the  images,  if  we  wish,  in  the  churches,  as  ornaments  and 
memorials  of  deeds  done/’  Under  all  this  ill-disguised  petu- 
lance, and  aversion  for  the  “Synod  of  the  Greeks,” Hie 
Carolinian  author  betrays  no  un  Catholic  doctrine  concern- 
ing images.  Tlie  word  “ adoration  ” alone  offends  his  ears, 
just  as  it  offends  our  Protestant  friends.  He  must  have 
known  the  difference,  however,  between  the  adoration  of 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


IOONOCL\ST  HEREBY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  487 


Ixxtria  (supreme  worship)  and  that  of  dulia  (inferior  worship), 
and  we  are  perforce  of  opinion  that  his  Grsecophobia  was, 
for  the  moment,  too  violent  to  admit  of  the  exercise  of 
theological  acumen  or  of  common  sense  (1).  But  with  all 
his  repugnance  to  the  use  of  the  word  “ adoration  ” in  con- 
nection with  images,  the  question  with  him  is  really  rather 
one  of  degree,  than  of  the  thing  itself.  It  is  certain  that  the 
early  Gallic  Church  sanctioned  the  veneration  of  images  (2), 
although  it  seems  to  have  objected  to  the  more  ardent  prac- 
tices of  the  Orientals,  such  as  genuflections  before  them,  kiss- 
es, incensations.  and  burning  of  lights.  The  French  clergy 
were  much  displeased  with  the  Seventh  Council  for  pro- 
nouncing anathema  against  those  who  wrould  not  give  posi- 
tive respect  to  images : “ If  any  one  does  not  salute  the  im- 
ages in  the  name  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  saints,  let  him  be 
anathema;”  nor  did  they  relish  the  denunciation  as  “half- 
wicked,” made  by  Epiphanius  the  Deacon  in  the  6th  Action > 
of  those  who  thought  it  sufficient  to  simply  retain,  but  not 
honor,  the  images.  Placed  therefore  between  the  two  Defi- 
nitions, that  of  the  Copronymian  Synod,  and  that  of  the 
7th  Council,  not  yet  confirmed,  they  decided  to  take  the  mid- 
dle path  of  neither  rejecting  nor  adoring  the  images  (3).  We 
may  also  observe,  finally,  that  the  mind  of  the  French  clergy 
could  not  have  been  averse  to  all  image-worship,  since 
twelve  of  their  most  learned  prelates  had  assisted  at  the 
Roman  Synod  held  bv  Pope  Stephen  IV  , and  had  sanctioned 
the  same  devotion  (4)  ; moreover,  in  the  Synod  held  un- 
der Pepin  at  Gentillv,  in  the  presence  of  the  legates  of  the 
Byzantine  emperor.,  the  French  prelates  had  distinctly  con- 
demned Iconoclast)*. 

(1)  The  tone  of  this  author  is  prejudiced  throughout  his  book.  In  fact,  he  is  so  addicted  to 

carping,  that  his  sincerity  app<;;r.  doubtful.  He  ridicules  Irene  aud  Constantine  because, 
in  accordance  with  the  Jntlr.fei' style  long  in  vogue  at  Constantinople,  they  call  their  mis- 
sives ” Divine : ” and  because  they  say  : “ God  has  chosen  us,  who  truly  seek  His  glory.” 
He  finds  fault  with  their  phrase.  "Through  God,  who  reigns  with  us.”  He  laughs  at  the 
Seventh  Couucll,  us  I-aving  a woman,  Irene,  for  a teacher.  We  say  that  the  Carolinian 
author  must  have  known  the  distinction  made  by  the  fathers,  at  least  from  the  - th  century, 
as  the  Calvinist  Daill6  IPnrdf  i limits,  between  the  ndors  tfon  (supreme)  of  lah  itt  and  that 
(relative!  of  dt dia  The  1 rench  clergy  of  his  time,  reinforced  by  the  extensive  Immigra- 
tion of  the  learned  monk1  of  Ireland,  were  r^ore  cultured  by  far  than  the  Byzantine,  and 
even  these  latter  were  familiar  with  the  distinction.  Originally  and  in  the  gnmu.it  t icai  sense, 
the  terms  latrla  and  were  svnonymous,  but  by  their  adoption  into  the  theological 

vocabulary,  they  acquired  different  meanings. 

(2)  St.  Gregorv  of  Tours  h.  MM,  in  his  Glorv  of  the  Martvr*.  h.  1,  c.  23,  speaks  of  a 

vision  In  which  Christ  ordered  that  his  pictures  should  not  present  His  figure  In  an  uncov- 
ered state.  Pope  St  Gregorv  the  Great  rebuked  Serenus  of  Marseilles  forremoving  im- 
ages from  hischiirrhes.  ” Tt  is  one  thing.”  said  he  (lhtok  7,  rp.  Ill*  “to  worship  a pic- 
ture. another  to  learn  from  it  what  is  to  be  adored prohibit  not  the  use  of  images, 

but  only  their  worship.” 

(8)  Caroline  Boohs,  b.  2,  c.  3.  (4)  Anastasius  the  Librarian,  Life  of  Stephen  TV ’• 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


488 


STUDIES  m CHURCH  HISTORY. 


We  now  approach  an  event  which  Protestant  authors* 
following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  celebrated  Calvinist  Daille, 
have  endeavored  to  present  as  another  excellent  argument 
against  the  antiquity  of  our  devotion  to  images.  In  the 
year  794,  Charlemagne  caused  to  be  held  at  Frankfort-on- 
Main,  a Synod  of  about  three  hundred  bishops,  convened 
from  Italy,  France,  and  Germany,  to  consider  the  doctrine 
of  Elipand  and  Felix,  two  Spanish  prelates,  who  taught 
that  Christ,  according  to  his  Humanity,  was  only  the  adopt- 
ive Son  of  God.  At  this  Synod  two  Papal  legates,  the  bish- 
ops Theophylactus  and  Stephen,  were  present  in  the  name 
of  Adrian  I.  After  the  condemnation  of  Elipand  (of  To- 
ledo) and  Felix  (of  Urgel),  the  Synod  took  up  the  question  of 
images,  and  in  its  2d  Canon  decreed  : “ There  was  brought 

before  the  fathers  a question  about  the  late  (nova)  Synod  of 
the  Greeks,  held  at  Constantinople  on  the  adoration  of 
images,  in  which  it  was  written  that  those  should  be  an- 
athematized who  would  not  give  service  or  adoration  to 
images,  as  to  the  life-giving  Trinity.  Our  holy  fathers,  re- 
fusing, in  every  way,  such  service  and  adoration,  despised 
and  condemned  those  who  consented  to  it.”  In  answer  to 
this  objection,  Petau  (1)  replies  that  the  bishops  of  Frank- 
fort condemned,  not  the  7th  Synod  itself,  but  the  strong  ex- 
pressions of  Constantine  of  Cyprus,  which  they  regarded, 
according  to  their  badly  translated  copy  of  the  Ads , as 
sanctioning  the  supreme  service  of  latria  to  images.  It  is 
certain,  however,  that  the  bishops  of  Nice  embraced  the 
opinions  of  the  Cyprian  prelate ; therefore,  the  reply  of 
Petau  is  not  satisfactory.  Vasquez,  Suarez,  Bini,  and 
others,  give  a no  less  dissatisfactory  answer,  one  indeed, 
which  is  to  be  absolutely  rejected.  They  contend  that  the 
Synod  of  Frankfort,  when  editing  the  above  canon,  had  in 
mind,  not  the  Seventh  Council  which  restored  image  wor- 
ship, but  the  Copronymian  Pseudo-Synod,  which  abolished 
it.  The  2d  Canon  of  Frankfort,  say  these  writers,  con- 
demns the  Synod  “ held  at  Constantinople  ; ” but  the  le- 
gitimate 7th  Council  was  held  at  Nice  ; therefore,  the  latter 
was  not  condemned  at  Frankfort.  But  we  must  remember 

Ml  e.'vn  nnfi  h.  ir>,  C.  13. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  48$ 

that  the  7th  Council  was  convoked  for,  and  met  at  Constan- 
tinople, and  would  have  there  held  its  sessions,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  mutinous  Iconoclast  soldiery,  fear  of  whom 
caused  a removal  to  Nice ; and  that  the  last  session  of  the 
Council  was  really  held  in  the  capital,  that  the  sovereigns 
might  be  present.  Hence,  the  bishops  of  Frankfort  might 
quite  naturally  speak  of  the  Seventh  Council  as  a “ Synod 
held  at  Constantinople.”  Again,  the  Frankfort  prelates 
condemned  “ the  late”  Synod ; now,  while  their  term  might 
well  be  applied  to  a Council  celebrated  only  seven  years 
before,  as  was  the  Seventh  Council,  it  would  scarcely  be  used 
in  regard  to  one  held  forty  years  before,  as  was  the  Co- 
pronyraian  conventicle.  Finally,  the  Synod  of  Frankfort 
distinctly  asserts  that  it  condemns  and  spurns  those  who 
consented  to  the  giving  of  adoration  to  images ; but  of  the 
two  Synods  in  question,  the  Seventh  Council  alone  answers 
to  this  description.  It  is  clear  then  that  another  answer 
than  that  of  Suarez,  etc.,  must  be  given  to  Daille  and  his 
imitators,  alleging  the  authority  of  the  Synod  of  Frankfort 
against  the  practice  of  devotion  to  images 

We  must  admit  that  the  Synod  of  Frankfort  rejected  the 
decree  of  the  Seventh  Council ; but  we  contend,  with  Ba- 
ronio,  Bellarmine,  and  Du  Perron,  that  it  was  under  a falsa 
impression  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  that  decree;  that, 
in  fine,  the  Frankfort  prelates,  jnst  like  the  author  of  the 
Caroline  Books,  did  not  condemn  the  doctrine  of  image-wor- 
ship, as  it  is  understood  and  taught  by  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  merely  the  doctrine  which  would  accord  to 
images  the  supreme  adoration  of  Jatria , which  doctrine  is 
condemned  by  the  Church  herself.  This  is  evident  from 
the  words  of  the  2d  Canon.  In  fact,  the  Profession  of 
Faith , pronounced  by  Constantine  of  Cyprus  in  the  Seventh 
Council,  had  been  so  abominably  distorted  by  the  incompe- 
tent translator,  that  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  indignation  of 
the  Frankfort  prelates  was  excited  against  the  Synod  that 
received  it  (1).  He  is  made  to  say  : “ I receive  and  honor- 


(1>  Anastaaius  the  Librarian,  who,  by  order  of  Pope  John  VIII.,  made  a new  version  of  these 
Act x.  says  of  the  translation  which  raused  such  trouble:  “At  nearly  every  step  tike 
translator  ignored  the  idioms  of  each  lanjruape.  so  thnt  what  was  really  intended,  "’an. 
seldom  or  never  I'e  underst-H-t for  this  reason,  it  S d^owed  *\v  nearly  ** 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


490 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ably  embrace  the  holy  images,  according  to  the  service  of 
adoration,  which  I give  to  the  consubstantial  and  life-giving 
Trinity.  ’ Now,  in  the  Greek  text,  the  words  “I  receive 
and  honorably  embrace  the  holy  images1’  are  given  in 
participles,  and  depend  on  wliat  goes  before,  so  that  the 
whole  sentence  should  read  : “ I,  although  unworthy,  epn- 

sent  to  these,  and  am  of  the  same  opinion,  receiving  and 
honorably  embracing  the  holy  images  ” Then  comes  the 
next  part  of  the  sentence,  asserting  the  kind  of  adoration 
to  be  given  to  the  Blessed  Trinity  : “ and  the  adoration 
which  is  according  to  latria , I give  only  to  the  consubstan- 
tial and  life-giving  Trinity.”  Had  the  prelates  of  Frank- 
fort seen  a correct  version  of  this  Profession , there  would 
have  been  no  ill-feeling  against  the  Seventh  Synod,  for  their 
doctrine  on  tne  image  question  was  not  different  from  that 
of  Rome,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  communion  be- 
tween the  Holy  See  and  the  churches  of  France  and  Germany 
was  not  suspended,  even  for  a day.  Nor  did  the  churches  of 
France  and  Germany  cease  to  communicate  with  the 
Greeks.  This.is  certainly  a proof  that  the  former  did  not 
think  that  the  latter  had  erred  in  dogma  ; that  they  only 
regarded  the  discipline,  sanctioned  at  Nice,  as  likely  to  be 
abused  by  the  ignorant,  and  hence  a dangerous  one  to  tol- 
erate. Indeed,  the  prelates  of  Frankfort  did  not  condemn 
precisely  the  Definition  of  Faith  of  the  Seventh  Synod, 
which  accorded  to  images  an  honor  far  inferior  to  the 
adoration  of  latria , due  to  God  alone  ; they  condemned  what 
was  said  to  have  been  asserted  by  Constantine  of  Cyprus  in 
the  Synod,  namely,  that  images  should  receive  the  same 
honor  as  the  Blessed  Trinity.  But  is  it  not  strange,  one 
may  ask,  that  the  prelates  of  Frankfort  entertained  such 
feelings,  as  they  certainly  manifested,  towards  an  (Ecu- 
menical Council  ? We  must  bear  in  mind  that  they  did  not 
regard  the  Seventh  Council  as  universal ; they  looked  upon 
it  as  a National  Council  of  the  Greeks.  That  such  was  the 
case,  is  proven  by  a Dumber  of  testimonies  from  contem- 
porary and  proximately  succeeding  authors  (1),  and  by  the 

(1)  The  Fulda  Anna]*  of  the  Frank *,  say  of  it : “ The  Pseudo-Synod  of  the  Greeks,  held 
for  the  adoration  of  imapes,  and  falsely  called  the  Seventh,  was  condemned  by  the  bishops.” 
Similar  language  is  used  by  Adhelm,  in  his  Annals;  by  the  Anonymous  Author  of  the  Life 
of  Chat  I?  nun  me  in  Duchesne’s  Ohten  Writers  of  the  History  of  the  Franks : by  Hincmar, 
Ado  of  Vienne,  Ejrinhurd,  the  Saxon  Poet,  and  many  others. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  491 

sentiments  of  the  Caroline  Books , which  we  know  to  have 
been  precisely  their  own.  In  Book  4,  chap.  13,  the  author 
compares  the  Seventh  with  the  Copronymian  Synod,  and 
says:  “They  and  their  predecessors  insolently  desired  to 
convene  a Synod,  and  to  associate  it  with  the  six  venerable 
ones,  calling  it  the  Seventh  Synod.  But  while  both  parties 
importunately  trie  1 this  thing,  neither  attained  the  object 

of  their  ambition Both  the  brazen  coin  and  the  tin  one 

(1)  being  not  allowed  to  make  up  the  number  Seven,  there 
remain  only  Six.  which  are  illustrated  by  the  perfection 
of  the  number,  and  by  the  brightness  of  Catholic  erudition.” 
And  in  Chap.  28,  “Among  other. mad  things  said  to  have 
been  done  or  written  in  the  same  Synod,  not  the  least  of  their 
hallucinations  is  the  styling  their  Synod  (Ecumenical,  when 
it  neither  preserved  the  universal  purity  of  faith,  nor  was 
made  up  from  all  the  churches.”  Nor  is  it  at  all  strange  that 
the  Frankfort  prelates  did  not  concede  the  palm  of  oecu- 
menicity  to  the  Seventh  Synod,  for  it  had  not  been  confirmed 
be  the  Roman  Pontiff.  When  Pope  Adrian  I.  answered  the 
Capitular  which  the  abbot  Angilbert  brought  him  from 
Oharlemagne,  he  did  not  claim  for  the  Synod  any  respect  as 
a General  Council ; and  the  successors  of  Adrian  constantly 
communicated  with  the  French  who  rejected  it,  as  well  as 
with  the  English  church,  which  labored  under  the  same 
mistake  as  the  French,  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Seventh  Council  (2).  True  to  his  theory  that  the  Synod 
of  Frankfort  condemned,  not  the  Seventh  but  the  Copronym- 
ian Synod,  Biui  rightly  asserts  that  these  prelates  would 
not  have  ventured  to  reject  a Synod  confirmed  by  Rome  ; he 
holds,  therefore,  that  Pope  Adrian  confirmed  the  Seventh 
Synod.  Now,  while  it  is  true  that  this  Pontiff  received  the 
decrees  of  the  Council,  yet  he  did  not  solemnly  confirm  them 
in  the  usual  manner,  namely,  by  an  Encyclical  Letter  to  all 
the  churches.  To  this  fact,  he  himself  is  a witness  in  his 
Apologetic  Epistle  to  Charlemagne  : “ According  to  our  or- 

ders, they  held  this  Synod,  and  restored  the  holy  and  vener- 
able images  to  their  ancient  position.  And  as  in  our  own* 

(1)  The  author  compares  the  Six  General  Councils  to  six  golden  coins,  to  which  the 
Copronymltes  wished  to  join  a brazen  counterfeit,  and  the  fathers  of  the  Seventh  Counoil 
a tin  one. 

(2)  See  Roger  of  Hovcxlcn  and  Matthew  of  Westminster. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


492 


8TDDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


and  in  the  Definition  of  St.  Gregory,  it  was  established,  con- 
cerning images — so  they  avowed,  in  their  Definition — to  give 
them  kisses  and  honorable  salutation,  but  not,  according  to 
our  faith,  to  give  them  a real  latria , which  belongs  only  to 

the  Divine  nature However,  we  have  given , as  yet , no 

response  to  the  same  emperor  concerning  the  same  Synod , fearing 
they  mightreturn  to  their  errors.”  Drawing  these  reflections 
to  a close,  we  conclude  that  the  prelates  assembled  at 
Frankfort,  like  the  author  of  the  Caroline  Books , were  de- 
ceived as  to  the  meaning  of  the  decree  on  image-worship, 
issued  by  the  Seventh  Council,  and  that  they  rejected  it* 
feeling  themselves  justified  in  so  doing,  because  the  want 
“of  Apostolic  confirmation,  on  the  part  of  the  same  Seventh 
Synod,  was  equivalent  to  a lack  of  binding  authority.  The 
mind  of  the  French  Church,  however,  in  reference  to  the 
authority  of  that  Roman  Church  which  had  just  defended 
and  sanctioned  anew  a relative  worship  of  images,  was  very 
different  from  that  which  Protestant  authors  affect  to  dis- 
cover. The  utter  devotion  of  that  mind  to  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  See,  is  shown  by  the  following  passages  from  the 
Caroline  B<xjks,  b.  1,  c.  6 : Before  we  undertake  a discussion 

of  the  testimonies  absurdly  cited  by  the  Easterns  in  their 
Synod,  we  think  it  proper  to  show  how  the  Roman  Church 
was  elevated  by  the  Lord  above  the  other  churches,  and 
how  she  is  to  be  consulted  by  the  faithful ; especially  since 
testimony  is  only  to  be  taken  from  those  Scriptures  which 
she  receives  as  Canonical,  and  since  the  teachings  of  no  Doc- 
tors are  to  be  accepted,  but  of  those  who  have  been  received 
by  Gelasius  or  other  Pontiffs  of  that  Holy  See.”  And  hav- 
ing recited  a passage  of  St.  Augustine,  the  author  proceeds: 
“As  he  prefers  generally  the  Apostolic  Sees  to  all  others  in 
the  world,  how  much  more  is  that  See  to  be  preferred  to  all, 
which  Whs  elevated  above  the  other  Apostolic  Sees  ? As 
therefore  the  Apostles  were  eminent  among  the  other  dis- 
ciples, and  Peter  was  eminent  among  all  the  Apostles,  so 
likewise  among  other  sees  is  an  Apostolic  one  elevated,  and 
among  the  Apostolic  the  Roman.  For  this  See  was  not  put 
above  the  rest  by  any  Synodical  constitutions,  but  holds  the 
Primacy  from  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  saying  : 4 Thou  art 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  493 

Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I shall  build  My  Church.’  ” And 
then,  after  noting  how  the  great  St.  Jerome,  though  cowult- 
ed  by  Pope  Damasus  on  points  of  erudition,  consulted  the 
Pontiff  on  matters  of  faith,  he  concludes  : “ Whence  we  are 
to  understand  that  the  holy  and  learned  men,  who  shone  by 
the  light  of  science  and  preaching  throughout  the  world, 
not  only  did  not  leave  the  Boman  Church,  but,  in  times  of 
necessity,  implored  her  aid  to  strengthen  their  faith. 
Which,  as  we  have  said,  and  proved  by  examples,  all  Cath- 
olic churches  ought  regularly  to  do,  that  they  may  obtain 
aid  for  their  faith  from  her,  after  Christ,  who  has  neither 
spot  nor  stain,  and  who  crushes  the  frightful  heads  of 
heresy,  and  confirms  the  minds  of  the  faithful.  And  while 
many  have  receded  from  her  holy  and  venerable  com- 
munion, our  church  has  never  departed,  but  by  her  Apos- 
tolic instruction,  and  through  Him  from  whom  comes  every 
good  gift  and  every  perfect  one,  she  has  ever  received  rev- 
erend blessings.” 

From  the  time  of  the  Seventh  General  Council,  to  the 
reign  of  Leo  the  Armenian,  who  mounted  the  Byzantine 
throne  in  814,  the  Eastern  churches  enjoyed  comparative 
peace.  But  this  Emperor  resuscitated  the  Iconoclast  heresy, 
and  those  who  resisted  his  efforts  were  punished  with  im- 
prisonment and  spoliation.  With  the  advent  to  power  of 
Michael  the  Stutterer,  in  820,  the  Iconoclast  hopes  were 
raised  to  the  highest  pitch.  No  sooner  had  this  Emperor 
crushed  the  seditions  which  troubled  the  commencement  of 
his  reign,  than  he  dropped  the  mask  of  toleration  at  first 
assumed,  and  made  open  war  on  the  orthodox.  He  also  en- 
deavored to  deceive  Pope  Eugene  II.,  and  the  Emperor 
Louis  the  Pious  as  to  his  real  designs,  claiming  that  he  was 
only  resisting  the  most  superstitious  of  practices,  and  beg- 
ging the  influence  of  Louis  with  the  Pontiff  that  an  end 
might  be  put  to  religious  discord  in  the  Eastern  empire. 
Yielding  to  these  solicitations,  Louis  requested  of  the  Pope 
permission  to  hold  a meeting  of  bishops,  at  which  the  testi- 
monies of  the  fathers,  bearing  on  the  image-question,  might 
be  ventilated.  To  this  the  Pontiff  consented,  and  in  824,  a 
meeting  of  bishops  took  place  at  Paris,  the  result  of  which 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


494 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


was  the  sendiug  to  Louis  a voluminous  collection  of  cita- 
tions from  the  fathers,  divided,  as  follows,  into  Chapters. 
4‘  First,  against  those  who  indiscreetly  presume  to  remove 
images,  not  only  from  the  churches,  but  from  the  sacred 
vessels.  Second,  as  to  our  course  of  action  in  regard  to  the 
images  of  saints  and  historical  pictures,  it  is  laid  down  by 
that  most  holy,  illustrious,  and  wonderful  man,  the  most 
learned  of  the  Catholic  Church,  Pope  Gregory.  Third, 
against  those  who  revere  and  adore  images  with  an  undue 
worship,  and  call  them  holy,  and  say  that  through  them 
holiness  is  acquired,  as  was  inserted  in  that  Synod  of  the 
Greeks.  Fourth,  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  on  superstb 
tious  worship.  Fifth,  by  w'hat  authority,  and  with  what 
reason,  are  images  to  be  adored,  and  incense  to  be  offered 
them,  when  even  the  angels,  or  holy  men  when  living, 
would  not  be  adored  ? Sixth,  against  those  who  defend  the 
superstition  of  images  by  adducing  its  antiquity,  seeking  cus- 
tom rather  than  the  authority  of  truth.  Seventh,  the  saints 
have  always  taught  us,  by  their  words  and  deeds,  to  avoid 
all  superstition,  or  any  other  thing  which  might  cause  scan* 
dal  to  the  weaker  brethren.  Eighth,  because  some  have 
defended  the  adoration  of  images,  by  the  fact  of  Jacob  hav- 
ing adored  his  son  Joseph,  or  at  least  the  end  of  his  rod 
we  thought  proper  to  show  how  this  is  explained  by  St 
Jerome  and  by  St.  Augustine.  Ninth,  against  those  who  find 
evidence  in  the  adoration  of  David  by  the  prophet  Nathan, 
in  the  Book  of  Kings . Tenth,  against  those  who  adore  iim 
ages  because  they  call  them  sacred,  and  compare  them  with 
sacred  vessels.  Eleventh,  against  those  who  quote  the  two 
Cherubim  in  testimony.  Twelfth,  on  the  worship  which  the 
Greeks  call  latria.  Thirteenth,  against  those,  in  that  Synod 
of  the  Greeks,  who  say  that  they  adore,  with  like  reason, 
images  and  the  life-giving  cross.  Fourteenth,  against  those 
who  adduce  the  Sign  of  the  Cross  as  proof  that  it  is  as  licit 
to  adore  images  as  to  adore  the  wood  of  the  cross.*'  In  the 
Fifteenth,  there  are  many  testimonies  of  the  fathers  against 
the  indiscreet  adorers  of  images,  and  the  Sixteenth  explains 
“ how  was  originated  in  the  Eastern  church,  the  warfare 
against  images. ” To  this  Collection  the  bishops  added  the 


Digitized  by  UjOOQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  495 

text  of  a letter  which  they  wished  Louis  to  write  to 
Pope  Eugene,  and  also  the  text  of  one  which  they  would 
like  the  Pontiff  to  send  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  in  this 
latter  epistle,  they  proposed  as  a means  of  peace,  That 
those  who  wished  to  have  images  in  a fit  place,  and  without 
any  improper  adoration,  for  the  sake  of  pious  memory  and  of 
sound  doctrine,  should  have  them  ; that  those,  however,  who 
did  not  wish  them,  should  not  spurn  with  illicit  contempt, 
either  the  images  or  their  possessors.'*  Louis  sent  this 
draft  of  letter,  together  with  the  Chapters  just  quoted,  to 
Pope  Eugene  II.,  and  lie  gave  the  following  instructions  to 
his  envoys : “ We  therefore  command  your  Carefulness,  that 
before  you  say  anything  about  these  things  to  our  Apos- 
tolic Lord,  you  will  present  the  matter  with  great  care,  and 
extract  and  describe  what  you  may  find  more  apt  to  the 
present  business,  and  offer  it  to  him  to  read.  Because,  as 
you  know,  we  asked  his  permission  to  have  this  Collection 
made  by  our  bishops  ; and  hence  we  cannot  avoid  showing 
him  that  which,  by  his  permission,  has  been  collected. 
Take  the  greatest  pains,  nevertheless,  to  show  him  such  of 
these  (chapters)  as  best  pertain  to  the  image  question,  and 
which  he,  or  his,  .will  not  be  able  to  reject.  And  do  you 
reason  with  him  so  patiently  and  so  modestly  on  this  sub- 
ject, that  you  may  successfully  avoid,  by  too  much  resistance, 
compelling  him  to  fall  into  some  irrevocable  obstinacy. 
Rather  than  openly  resist  his  remarks,  be  yielding  to  them, 
and  thus  you  may  lead  him  to  the  rule  which  is  to  be  fol- 
lowed in  the  image  question.”  From  all  this,  Protestant 
writers  have  concluded  tliai  the  French  bishops,  in  conven- 
tion at  Paris  in  825,  refused  to  accord  images,  not  only  the 
supreme  adoration  of  latria , but  even  the  relative  and  in- 
ferior honor  which  Catholics  claim  for  them. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  language  used  by  the  pre- 
lates of  Paris  is  very  strong,  and  that  it  plainly  indicates* 
on  the  part  of  the  Western  churches,  a full  persuasion  that 
the  Greeks  of  their  day  were  exceedingly  superstitious. 
We  willingly  admit  that  the  strong  language  was  not  out  of 
place,  for  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  the  ac- 
cusation of  superstition  was  well  merited  by  many  of  the 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


496 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


fickle,  restless,  and  super-imaginative  Byzantines  of  that 
day.  But  we  do  assert,  firstly,  that  this  meeting  of  bish* 
ops  at  Paris  was  not  a Synod,  and  that  therefore  its  au- 
thority was  no  greater  than  that  of  so  many  private  indi- 
viduals ; secondly,  that  these  prelates  distinctly  submitted 
their  views  to  the  authoritative  judgment  of  Rome  ; thirdly, 
that  they  did  not  condemn  the  relative  honor  accorded  to 
images  by  the  Catholic  Church.  The  first  point  is  illustrat- 
ed by  the  draft  ot  the  Epistle  which  the  bishops  desired 
Louis  to  send  in  his  own  name  to  Pope  Eugene  II.,  and 
which  is  found  in  the  Ads  of  the  meeting  : ‘‘We  however, 

not  by  convoking  a Synod,  but,  as  we  asked  of  you  and  ob- 
tained permission  to  so  do,  by  such  conference  with  our 
friends,  your  children,  as  the  multifarious  cares  of  our  king- 
dom would  allow,  considered  what  we  should  present  to  your 
Lovingness  in  this  necessity,  so  that  the  people  might  be  re- 
stored to  concord  by  your  Holiness,  preserved  orthodox  by 
God.”  That,  secondly,  the  Parisian  assembly  submitted 
their  judgment  to  that  of  the  Holy  See,  is  shown  by  the 
Epistle  sent  to  the  Pontiff,  by  advice  of  the  prelates,  by 
the  sovereigns  Louis  and  Lothair,  “ as  we  knew  that  it  was 
our  duty  to  furnish  all  the  help  in  our  power,  in  matters 
pertaining  to  Divine  worship,  to  those  to  whom  God  has 
intrusted  the  government  of  the  churches  and  the  care  of 
the  Lord's  flock,  so,  when  the  Greek  embassadors  informed 
us  of  their  intention  to  wait  upon  you,  we  did  not  neglect 
to  most  carefully  consider  what  aid,  with  the  help  of  God, 
we  might  afford  you.  And  for  that  reason,  we  asked  of 
your  Holiness,  that  it  might  be.  permitted  to  our  priests 
to  search  for  and  to  collect  such  passages  of  the  holy  fathers 
as  would  serve  to  elucidate  the  matter  upon  which  the 
same  ambassadors  were  about  to  consult  you.  And  when, 
according  to  the  permission  given  by  you.  these  passages 
had  been  compiled,  with  such  care  as  the  short  space  of 
time  allowed,  they  were  sent  to  us  to  be  read.  Having 
read  them,  we  have  sent  them  by  our  legates,  the  vener- 
able bishops  Jeremiah  and  Jonas,  to  be  read  and  exam- 
ined by  your  Holiuess.  If  your  Paternity  were  to  think 
fit,  you  might  hold  a profitable  conference  with  these  bish- 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  497 

ops,  concerning  the  legation  you  are  about  to  send  into 
Greece,  as  they  are  very  well  versed  in  Sacred  Scripture, 
and  not  slightly  experienced  in  disputation.  However, 
we  have  not  sent  these  bishops,  with  the  aforesaid  Collec- 
tion of  opinions,  into  the  presence  of  your  Lovingness, 
that  they  should  exercise,  as  it  were,  any  magisterial 
functions,  or  be  regarded  as  sent  to  teach ; but  because, 
as  we  have  already  said,  it  is  our  duty  to  furnish  aid,  in 
all  cases,  to  your  most  holy  See.’*  Finally,  we  contend 
that  the  Parisian  assembly  condemned,  only  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Greeks,  not  the  relative  and  inferior  hon- 
or given  by  Catholics  to  images.  These  prelates,  in  fact, 
were  laboring  under  the  erroneous  impression  which 
affected  the  author  of  the  Caroline  Books  and  the  Synod  of 
Frankfort,  namely,  that  the  Seventh  Council  had  decreed 
to  images  the  same  devotion  as  was  given  to  the  Holy 
Trinity.  They  wished  to  put  into  practice  the  wise  sug- 
gestions of  the  great  St.  Gregory  to  Serenus  of  Marseilles ; 
checking  the  temerity  of  the  image-breakers,  and  repressing 
the  superstition  of  the  injudicious  and  the  ignorant.  To  be 
convinced  of  this,  it  is  sufficient  to  read  the  following  pas- 
sages from  the  episcopal  letter  to  Louis  and  Loth  air : The 

images  of  the  saints  are  not  to  be  broken  by  foolish  presump- 
tion ; nor  are  they,  to  the  injury  of  the  saints,  to  be  despised 
and  abolished.  Rather  should  they  be  preserved,  su- 
perstition being  removed,  for  sake  of  remembrance  and  of 
love,  according  to  true  religion  in  memory  of  those  whose 
images  they  are,  as  Blessed  Gregory  explained,  in  a suffi- 
ciently clear  and  Catholic  manner  your  corrective 

words  may  be  openly  directed  against  those  who  have  sent 
you  the  Epistle  we  have  read  (1),  for  its  text  shows  that 
both  factions  should  be  condemned,  that  is,  those  who  ven-., 
erate  the  images  with  an  undue  and  superstitious  worship, 
and  those  who  removed  the  same  from  the  nearer  places.” 
And  in  chap.  15,  of  their  Collection  the  bishops  say  : “ So 
far  this  is  all  for  thee  who  art  an  indiscreet  worshiper  of 
images  ; and  for  thee,  who  art  their  rfish  destroyer.” 

We  have  more  than  insinuated  that  many  superstitions 

(1)  The  bishops  allude  to  the  Epistle  of  the  Emperor  Michael  the  Stutterer  to  Louis. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


498 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


had  crept  into  use  among  the  Greeks,  in  reference  to  image- 
worship.  Indeed,  it  is  only  by  supposing  that  such,  unfor- 
tunately, was  the  case,  that  we  can  account  for  the  extraordi- 
nary caution  and  strong  language  of  the  Westerns,  of  which 
we  have  had  so  many  specimens.  Although  there  is  doubt- 
less some  exaggeration  to  be  expected  in  such  a quarter, 
we  adduce  a portion  of  the  Epistle  sent  by  the  Emperor 
Michael  to  Louis  the  Pious  : Many  of  our  ecclesiastics, 

as  well  as  laymen,  forgetting  the  Apostolic  traditions,  and 
transgressing  the  limits  of  their  forefathers,  have  become 
inventors  of  evil  things.  First  indeed  they  put  out  of  the 
temples  the  honorable  and  life  giving  crosses,  and  put  im- 
ages in  their  stead,  placing  lights  and  burning  incense  be- 
fore them,  holding  them  in  the  same  regard  as  the  honora- 
ble and  life  giving  wood  upon  which  Christ  the  True  God 
deigned  to  be  crucified  for  our  salvation  (1).  They  sang 
before  them,  adored  them,  and  sought  aid  from  them.  Many 
covered  them  with  cloths,  and  made  them  sponsors  for 
their  children  at  Baptism.  Others,  when  wishing  to  as- 
sume the  monastic  habit,  rejected  the  service  of  religious 
persons  who  used  to  receive  their  hair,  when  cut  off,  and 
using  instead  the  images,  allowed,  as  it  were,  the  locks  to 
fall  into  their  laps.  Some,  even  of  our  priests  and  clerics, 
scraping  the  paint  from  the  images,  mixed  it  with  the  Obla- 
tions, and  from  this  Oblation,  after  the  celebration  of  mass, 
communicated  them  who  wished.  Some  even  placed  the 
Body  of  the  Lord  in  the  hands  of  the  images,  whence  the 
communicants  might  receive  It.  Some,  despising  the  tem- 
ple, used  as  altars  the  pedestals  of  images  in  common 
houses,  exercising  the  sacred  ministry  upon  them.”  Bel- 
larmine  (2)  and  Christian  Lupus  (3)  contend  that  these  as- 
sertions of  Michael  are  foul  calumnies,  but  the  superstitious 
propensities  of  the  Greeks  were  noted  by  the  Dominican 
friar,  Pantaleon,  who.  writing  in  1252,  from  the  Dominican 
convent  of  Constantinople,  said  <4).  “ In  the  church  of  the 


(11)  The  reader  will  notice  the  thoroughly  un-Protestant  devotion  to  the  cross,  which  this 
Ioonocast  lnculclates. 

(2)  Treatise  on  Imavc-W'orsUip.  (3)  Note  to7th  Synod 

(1)  Cited  by  Alexandre,  Cent.  0,  S 10,  from  the  Lyons  Library  of  the  Fathers , il 

27. 


Digit  Dy  Cjoooie 


ICONOCLAST  HERESY,  AND  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  499 


said  palace  (Constantine's),  where  are  preserved  the  holy 
relics,  the  image  of  the  Holy  Mother  of  God  behind  the 
altar,  which  they  called  the  Lady  of  the  House  (of  God),  is 
immediately  locked  up  when  the  Lent  begins,  and  so  kept  un- 
til Holy  Saturday ; the  doors  are  covered  with  a cloth. 
The  same  is  done  to  the  shrines  of  Sts  MantellesandKoram- 
idius.  They  importune  the  image  of  the  Holy  Mother  of 
God,  that  she  may  cause  sons  to  be  born,  and  by  its  means, 
they  make  a sponsor  of  her,  in  this  manner  : A garment  is 

connected  with  the  image,  so  that  she  may  receive,  as  spon- 
sor, the  child  from  the  hand  of  the  priest But  that 

the  image  speaks,  or  promises  fidelity  for  the  child,  or 
bears  witness  to  the  baptism,  who  will  dare  to  assert,  unless  he 
despises  God  ? Omittiug  no  kind  of  superstition, , and  hat- 
ing their  true  brethren,  they  make  brethren  to  themselves 
of  the  unwilling  saints.” 

There  are  several  other  arguments,  adduced  from  writers 
of  this  period,  which  Daille  and  his  imitators  are  fond  of 
citing  as  proof  that  the  churches  of  the  West,  during  the 
Iconoclastic  troubles,  were  not  unanimous  in  giving  even  an 
inferior  honor  to  images  (1).  Thus,  they  quote  sayings 
from  Agobardus,  archbishop  of  Lyons  ; from  Jonas,  bishop 
of  Orleans  ; from  Dungal,  a learned  recluse  of  the  abbey  of 
St.  Denis  ; and  Walfrid  Strabo.  As  the  arguments  already 
adduced  in  the  cases  of  the  Caroline  Boohs  and  the  two  epis- 
copal conventions,  apply  also  to  these,  we  may  omit  any 
disquisition  upon  them. 

Returning  now  to  the  history  of  Iconoclasm,  we  only  ob- 
serve that  during  the  reigns  of  Michael  the  Stutterer  and 
Theophilus.  the  orthodox  had  much  to  sutler,  but  with  the 
advent  of  Theodora  iii  841,  and  the  election  of  Methodius 
to  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  the  war  on  images 
came  to  an  end.  In  the  West,  about  the  year  823.  Claude  of 
Turin  removed  the  images  from  the  churches  of  his  diocese, 
and  wrote  against  their  veneration,  but  he  was  refuted  by 
Theodemir,  Dungal,  and  others.  Before  the  tenth  century, 
the  2d  Council  of  Nice  was  everywhere  received  as  cecumen- 

(1)  Many  Protestants  quote  Hlncmar  of  Rheitns  in  their  favor,  but  Daill6  declares  that  8 
diligent  inspection  of  the  MS.,  from  which  his  words  are  cited,  satisfied  him  that  the  pas- 
sage isaa  interpolation  by  the  Centuriators  of  Magdeburg- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


soo 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


ical,  and  the  respect  due  to  images  everywhere  recognized. 
In  the  twelfth  century,  the  Valdensians.  Albigensians,  and 
other  fanatics,  revived  the  Iconoclast  heresy ; while  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,*'  Calvin  declared  the  veneration 
of  images  idolatrous.  At  first,  Luther  did  not  wish  them 
removed,  but  the  friends  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  ac- 
cused the  Catholics  of  ascribing  a certain  in-dwelling  power 
to  the  images  themselves.  In  many  Lutheran  churches,  the 
crucifix  and  certain  historical  paintings  are  allowed. 
Erasmus  thus  protests  against  the  frenzy  of  Carlostadt : 
“Whoever  deprives  us  of  painting,  deprives  existence  of  its 
greatest  charms  ; painting  is  often  a better  interpreter  than 
language.  It  is  false  that  images  are  useless.  Formerly 
there  were  images  in  the  Jewish  temples — cherubim,  and 
fanciful  images  of  men  and  animals.  The  images  which 
adorn  our  Christian  churches  are  not  presented  to  the  faith- 
ful for  adoration — they  are  either  elegant  ornaments  or 
pious  memorials.  Do  you  not  believe  that  if  the  scenes  of 
the  life  of  Christ  were  painted  on  the  sacred  walls,  such  ma- 
terial representations  would  raise  our  minds  to  the  contem- 
plation of  His  life?  Catholics  never  offer  images  to  be 
adored,  and  the  respect  that  they  show  is  for  the  saints  rep- 
resented. Banish,  then,  since  you  will  not  have  images,  the 
Atlases  and  musicians,  whom  the  artist  uses  to  support  a 
pulpit  or  a pillar  ; yea,  remove  the  cock  which  surmounts 
the  steeple”  (1). 

41)  Epistles*  b.  81,  n.  Ml 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XL. 


ORIGIN  OP  THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  STATES. 

In  giving  this  title  to  the  following  dissertation,  we  do  so 
because  we  hold  that  the  term  “Temporal  Power”  is  more 
appropriately  applied  to  the  authority  of  regulation  and  de- 
position which  the  Supreme  Pontiffs  once  exercised,  de jure 
and  de  facto , over  the  Christian  monarchs  of  the  earth.  Few 
events  have  given  rise  to  more  bitter  heart-burnings  and 
more  acrimonious  discussions  than  those  which  commenced 
in  the  Papal  States  with  the  war  of  1859,  and  culminated 
with  the  occupation  of  Rome  by  the  Italian  government  in 
1870.  We  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  a defence  of  the 
rights  of  the  Holy  See  to  the  retention  of  its  temporal  do- 
main ; that  has  been  done  ably  and  sufficiently  in  every 
language  of  the  Christian  community,  so  that  Catholics 
may  be  said  to  be  of  one  mind  in  the  matter.  But  bur  at- 
tention is  claimed  by  the  origin  of  the  Pontifical  sovereignty 
over  the  old  Duchy  of  Rome  and  contiguous  regions — as  a 
purely  historical  theme,  and  one  of  great  interest  and  im- 
portance, we  cannot  afford  to  omit  it.  The  student  of  the 
middle  ages  is  never  surprised  when  he  finds  the  subject 
matter  of  his  researches  involved  in  more  or  less  of  obscur- 
ity, and  when  he  approaches  the  present  question  he  will 
experience  some  difficulty  in  its  solution.  Modern  writers 
have  devoted  much  time  to  the  matter,  impelled  by  the 
andacious  attacks  of  the  enemies  of  Rome,  but  as  yet  their 
praiseworthy  efforts  have  not  succeeded  in  entirely  dissipat- 
ing the  cloud  which  obscures  our  vision  of  the  great  events 
of  the  eighth  century.  In  forming  a just  idea  of  this  period, 
truth  has  been  forced  to  contend  with  no  ordinary  passions. 
Party  spirit  and  national  vanity  have  taken  the  field,  and 
thus  we  see  French  historians  attributing  to  Pepin  and 
Charlemagne  far  more  influence  in  Roman  affairs  than  those 
rulers  ever  pretended  to  possess,  while,  on  the  other  hand, 

501 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


502 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


Italian  critics  do  not  hesitate  to  detract  from  tnat  praise 
which  is  really  due  to  the  Carlovingian  kings  as  glorifiers 
of  the  Roman  See.  Nor,  with  so  rich  a prospect  of  facts 
for  the  buttressing  of  their  tottering  theories,  could  we  ex- 
pect any  inactivity  in  those  court-theologians  and  Crosar- 
worshipers,  who  are  perhaps  the  worst  enemies  of  the 
Church ; when  these  gentry  go  to  the  Rome  of  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, they  can  see  there  no  sovereign  but  him  of  Constanti- 
nople, and  in  later  days,  they  have  eyes  only  for  the  West- 
ern emperor.  In  addition  to  these  two  classes  of  critics 
who  may  claim  some  of  our  respect  and  much  of  our  atten- 
tion, there  is  a third,  made  up  of  the  sworn  enemies  of  the 
royal  dominion  of  the  Pontiffs,  in  whatever  shape  it  may 
be  actuated,  or  by  whatever  arguments  it  j»«y  be  defended. 
These  men  have  covered  the  origin  of  the  temporal  domain 
with  dirt,  assigning  as  its  causes,  consummate  ambition,  un- 
scrupulous chicanery,  and  low  theft.  We  will  now  proceed 
to  examine  the  origin  of  the  Papal  dominion  in  the  Roman 
States,  so  far  as  the  limited  nature  of  our  work  will  permit. 

In  the  year  330,  the  Emperor  Constantino  transferred  the 
seat  of  government  from  Rome  to  Byzantium,  which  from 
that  time  was  styled  Constantinople.  The  temporal  influ- 
ence of  the  Pones  commenced  to  increase,  nor  did  the  Em- 
perors complain;  nay,  the}r  were  too  willing  to  be  relieved  of 
the  weight  of  government  in  Italy.  At  the  time  of  St.  Greg- 
ory the  Great,  this  power  commenced  to  assume  definite 
proportions  ; but  eveu  in  the  days  of  St.  Leo  the  Great  (440 
-461)  it  was  remarkable  Before  his  election,  Leo  had  been 
chosen  by  Valentinian  III.  as  mediator  between  his  gen- 
eral, .Etius.  and  Albinus  the  pretorian,  whose  discords  were 
shaking  the  empire.  It  was  during  this  reign  that  Attila  fell 
upon  Italy  (452),  and  the  safety  of  Rome  was  owing  to  the 
Pope  s influence  with  the  conqueror.  Three  years  later,  he  in 
similar  manner  saved  the  city  from  the  savage  Genseric  the 
Vandal.  So  accustomed  had  the  people  of  Rome  become  to 
the  tutelage  of  the  Pontiff,  that  it  was  unsafe  to  leave  them 
alone.  Hence  it  was  that  Leo  was  unable  to  attend  that 
Synod  of  Ephesus  to  which  the  crimes  of  Dioscorus  gave 
the  mnne  of  Robber-Svnod  and  that  lie  could  preside  at 


Digitized  by  i^ooQle 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  STATES.  - 503 


the  Council  of  Chalcedon  only  by  means  of  his  legates. 
Thus  he  explains  his  absence,  in  the  first  case,  in  his  letter 
to  the  Empress  Pulclieria,  and  in  the  second,  writing  to 
Marcianus  and  the  oecumenical  fathers.  But  we  fiud  the 
great  Gregory  exercising  a power  more  nearly  approaching 
that  of  a sovereign.  Thus,  he  sent  governors  to  the  imper- 
ial cities,  made  treaties  with  the  barbarians,  recruited  arm- 
ies, and  provided  Rome  with  fortifications  and  provisions 
(1).  Sisinnius  and  Gregory  II.  restored  the  walls  of  Rome. 
And  so  the  de  Jacto  sovereignty  of  the  Pontiffs  progressed, 
until  in  the  eighth  century  it  became  de  jure.  The  true  rea- 
son for  its  exercise  was  the  abandonment  of  their  duties  by 
the  Emperors  of  Constantinople,  and  the  spontaneous  move- 
ment of  a miserable  people  imploring  the  succor  of  a loving 
father  (2).  So  gradual,  and,  we  may  say,  insensible,  was  the 
transition  to  a de  jure  state  of  government,  that  grave  and 
earnest  critics  differ  as  to  the  time  when  the  Papal  dominion 
reached  the  second  condition.  Among  others,  Orsi,  Bianchi, 
and  Thomassin,  hold  that  at  least  the  Duchy  of  Rome  recog- 
nized Gregory  II.  as  king,  in  the  year  726,  when  the  image- 
breaking Leo  the  Isaurian  provoked  the  Italians  to  revolt. 
The  learned  annotator  of  Baronius,  Pagi,  contends  that 
the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Papacy  dates  from  the  year 
754,  in  the  pontificate  of  Stephen  II.,  when  King  Pepin  of 
the  Franks  signed  the  treaty  of  Pavia,  after  the  defeat  of 
Astolphus  the  Lombard.  De  Marca  is  not  content  with 
those  who  defer  the  commencement  to  774,  when  Charle- 
magne annihilated  the  power  of  Desiderius,  and  thus  solidi- 
fied the  rule  of  the  Popes;  he  asserts  that  down  to  the  year 
796  the  Byzantine  Emperors  remained  masters  of  Rome. 
He  who  wishes  to  change  history  for  romance,  will  post- 
pone still  further  the  date  of  the  foundation  of  the  tem- 
poral dominion.  Ranke  certainly  styles  Julius  II.  “ the 
founder”  of  the  States  of  the  Church  (3),  but  his  context 
shows  that  he  uses  this  term  in  the  sense  of  restorer.  *' 

(I)  Book  I.,epi*t.7. 2;  71, 3,^29,30,31.  46  ; V.,  86,  41;  VI.,  80;  IX.,  4,  6,  48,  48;  Cmif. 
Migne ’»  Patrology , to 1. 77. 

<2)  For  a full  and  exact  narration  of  the  gradual  progress  of  this  de  facto  sovereignty, 
read  the  Origin  of  the  Temporal  Sorereigntu  of  the  Pope*,  published  In  the  Roman  Ciyil- 
ta  Cattomca  for  the  year  This  article  is  probably  the  most  correct  and  the  most  ex- 

haustive yet  written  upon  the  subject,  and  we  are  Indebted  to  It  for  much  of  our  Information. 

(3)  Book  I.,c.  2. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


504 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HI8TORY. 


Ranke  also  asserts  that  the  donation  of  Pepin  was  the  foun- 
dation of  the  whole  dominion  of  the  Popes.  If  any  one  wish- 
es to  defend  the  theory  of  the  revolutionary  government  of 
Bologna  of  1859,  in  which  it  was  claimed  that  the  Exarchate 
and  the  Pentapolis  (1)  became  subject  to  the  Popes  only 
under  Martin  V.  (1417-1431) — according  to  Ranke,  under 
Julius  II. — we  need  scarcely  notice  the  sophism,  for  such, 
and  a pure  and  simple  one,  it  certainly  must  be  called. 
From  the  time  of  the  donation  of  Charlemagne  to  that 
of  Pius  IX.,  there  is  a constant  succession  of  public  docu- 
ments which  prove  that  the  Romagna  was  ever  claimed  by 
the  Holy  See,  and  that  its  suzerain  rights  were  acknowl- 
edged by  international  law.  There  were  often  periods  when 
the  Popes  lost  possession  of  this  or  that  part  of  their  ter- 
ritory, now  owing  to  popular  turbulence,  sometimes  on  ac- 
count of  the  arrogance  of  their  vassal  princes,  and  still 
more  frequently  because  of  the  usurpation  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Emperors,  nearly  always  ungrateful  to  the  power  to 
which  they  owed  their  dignity.  But  what  does  this  prove  ? 
Certainly  not  that  the  conquests  of  Caesar  Borgia  and  Julius 
II.  were  the  foundation  of  the  Papal  rule  in  these  districts. 

A careful  examination  of  the  records  of  the  time  convinces 
us  that  the  first  Roman  Pontiff  to  place  upon  his  brow 
the  crown  of  temporal  sovereignty  was  Stephen  II.,  who 
reigned  between  the  years  752  and  757,  and  the  precise  date 
of  the  acquisition  was  the  year  754.  Many  had  been  the 
revolts  of  the  Italians  against  the  Eastern  Emperors ; often 
indeed  had  the  Popes  been  forced  in  charity  to  the  people  to 
assume  the  direction  of  affairs,  but  they  had  always  begged 
the  discontented  populations  “ to  not  fail  in  love  and  fidelity 
to  the  Roman  Empire’*  (2).  The  rule  of  Byzantium  had 
proved  execrable  for  its  impiety,  and  contemptible  for  its 
impotenev  (3)  and  Gregory  III.  had  be  eft  obliged  in  the  year 

(1)  The  iVnHf'ojjs  *'  was  li  t*  collective  name  of  the  flve  cities,  Ancona,  Rtmini,  Pesaro, 
Fano  and  Sin  gagim.  In  the  Bolognese  official  A/ntt  fforeof  Oct  0,  185U, appeared  a Memor- 
andum siirncd  t.v  ivpoli  and  Cipriani.  In  which  one  reason  for  the  rebellion  was  given  thus, 
••  imringall  tlu*  middle  ages  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Popes  was  never  exercised  in 
the  Romagna.  H was  subjected  to  the  Holy  See  only  in  the  fifteenth  century  ” 

(vi)  anastasit  s Pibl  , in  Lifr  nf  Grcr).  IT. 

(3»  The  following  fact  will  show  that  the  Exarch  (Imperial  representative  at  Ravenna)  had 
verv  little  iutluence.  In  the  year 713.  occurred  a great  battle  between  the  revolted  Raven- 
ar.d  the  Constant  I nopollt  an  troops,  and  so  great  was  the  number  of  Greek  corpses 
thrown  into  the  Patcremo  that  for  six  vear*  the  people  would  eat  no  fish  taken  therefrom. 
This  victory  was  ever  afte,-  celebrated  by  the  Ravennese  with  processions  and  litanies,  and 


Digitized  by  YjOOQle 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  STATES.  505 

739  to  make  his  famous  appeal  to  Charles  Martel,  sending 
to  him  the  keys  of  the  tomb  of  the  Apostles,  and  begging 
him  to  protect  the  Romans  from  the  oppressions  of  the  then 
barbarous  Lombards  ; but  as  yet  the  Papacy  recognized  as 
legitimate  the  imperial  sceptre,  and  when  peace  was  con- 
cluded with  Liutprand  by  Pope  Zachary  (successor  to  Greg. 
III.)  it  was  signed  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor.  Even  Stephen 
II.,  up  to  the  very  time  when  he  was  compelled  to  turn 
his  thoughts  from  the  East  to  the  West,  acknowledged  the 
obligation  of  obedience  to  Constantinople,  for  we  find  him 
turning  to  the  infamous  Constantine  Copronymus  in  the 
year  753,  and  entreating  him  to  protect  his  subjects  from 
the  Lombards,  to  “ liberate  the  city  of  Rome  and  the  whole 
Italian  province  from  the  bites  of  the  child  of  iniquity.” 
These  facts  compel  us  to  reject  the  theory  of  Orsi  and 
others  that  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Popes  dates  as 
far  back  as  the  time  of  Gregory  II. 

Of  different  calibres  indeed  were  the  emperors  Coprony- 
mus and  Justinian.  It  was  scarcely  to  be  hoped  that  the 
former  would  effect  for  Italy,  against  the  Lombards,  what 
the  latter,  supported  by  Belisarius  and  Narses,  had  accom- 
plished against  the  Goths.  In  the  year  751,  news  reached 
Byzantium  that  the  last  of  the  Exarchs  had  surrendered  to 
the  conquering  Astolphus,  but  the  emperor  wras  top  much 
occupied  in  image-breaking  to  pay  much  attention  to  the 
loss  of  his  fairest  province,  and  two  years  passed  ere  he 
wrote  to  the  usurper  and  implored  its  restitution.  In  the 
meantime  Astolphus  had  prepared  to  verify  the  title,  “king 
of  all  Italy,”  which,  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  previous- 
hT,  his  predecessor  Agilulphus  had  stamped  upon  the  iron 
crown.  His  lieutenant,  Count  Robert,  had  vainly  endeav- 
ored to  capture  Rome,  and  had  lost  his  life  in  the  attempt, 
when  the  order  was  given  to  devastate  the  Campagna.  Nepi 
wras  taken,  all  the  castles  destroyed  and  the  churches  burned. 
Pope  Stephen  II.,  who  had  been  elected  in  March,  752,  then 
made  his  last  appeal  to  Copronymus,  but  this  was  as  vain  a& 

by  the  decoration  of  the  city,  right  under  the  eyes  of  the  Exarch.  Well  may  Muratori  say 
that  the  Exarchs  were  obliged  '*  to  navigate  as  they  best  could.”  So  nominal  had  become 
the  authority  of  the  Emperor,  that,  according  to  Balbo,  in  his  History  of  Italy  under  the 
Barbarians.!).  11 .,  e.  25,  the  Exarch  was  often  seen  taking  the  part  of  the  Pope  against 
his  majesty. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


506 


STUDIES  IN  CHUKCH  HISTORY. 


his  prayers  to  the  ferocious  Lombard,  with  whom  he  tried 
-every  legitimate  means  of  pacification.  To  whom  could  the 
Pontiff  look  for  help?  Nearly  the  whole  of  Italy  lay  at 
the  feet  of  the  oppressor.  The  Lombard  hordes  roved  ram- 
pant from  the  Alps  to  the  Volturno,  Rome  alone  excepted  ; 
the  days  were  gone,  when  the  Spoletans  successfully  made 
common  cause  with  the  Eternal  City  against  the  barbarian; 
Venice,  already  ambitious  oi  commercial  prosperity,  cared 
not  to  be  embroiled  with  a powerful  and  probably  success- 
ful conqueror  ; the  few  cities  of  lower  Italy,  whose  insigni- 
ficance the  Lombard  allowed  yet  to  repose  under  the  ban- 
ners of  Copronymus,  were  of  no  value  in  arms ; the  men  of 
the  Pentapolis  were  exhausted  of  all  strength  after  their 
brave  but  futile  struggle.  In  the  exercise  of  that  right  ac- 
corded him  by  the  will  of  the  Romans,  by  the  law  of  nature 
and  by  the  imperial  permission  to  ally  himself  with  any 
willing  defender  (1),  Stephen  turned  to  the  new  peoples  of 
the  earth,  and  Ilia  prophetic  eye  selected  the  one  whom  we 
rightly  call  the  first-born  (2)  of  the  Catholic  nations  of 
Europe. 

The  brave  and  generous  Franks  were  at  this  time  gov- 
erned by  Pepin  the  Short,  the  w orthy  descendant  of  Charles 
Martel  and  of  Pepin  of  Heristal.  The  already  great  fame 
of  this  prince  had  been  augmented  this  same  year  by  an  im- 
portant victory  over  the  Saxon  barbarians,  and  his  devotion 
to  the  Roman  Church  was  well  known  (3)  When  Pepin 
received  the  letters  of  Pope  Stephen,  he  resolved  to  hold 
himself  at  the  Pontiff s disposal,  and  sent  as  ambassadors 
to  Rome,  the  bishop  of  Metz  and  the  duke  Autcarius,  who 
were  charged  to  escort  Stephen  into  France,  as  he  had  ex- 
pressed a wish  to  treat  personally  with  the  French  king. 
About  this  time  the  Emperor  Copronymus  sent  a trusted 
courtier  to  the  Holy  See,  begging  the  Pope  to  personally 
interview  Astolphus  and  prevail  upon  him  to  restore  his 

(1)  For  this  concession,  see  Tkoya,  Diplomatic  Coder  of  the  Lombai'd#„  no.  681. 

(2)  When  Clodoveus  or  Clovis  had  been  baptized  by  St.  Remiglus,  he  was  the  only  Cath- 
olic sovereign  In  Europe,  as  the  princes  of  Germany  and  of  the  British  Isles  were  Pagans, 
while  the  Goths  of  Spain  and  Italy,  the  Burgundians,  &o.,  and  even  the  Byzantine  emperor 
were  infected  with  heresy.  Heuce  arose  for  the  French  king  the  title  of  Most  Christian, 
and  for  the  nation,  the  style  of  First  Child  of  the  Church. 

(3)  He  was  bound  by  gratitude  to  Rome,  for  in  great  measure  he  owed  his  throne  to  the 
sanction  given  by  Pope  Zacchary  to  his  election  by  the  Frankish  counts.  He  wfs  crowned 
at  Soissons  by  St.  Boniface,  then  legate  of  the  Pontiff. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQie 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  IN  T5IF  HOMAN  STATES.  507 


conquered  Italian  provinces  to  the  empire.  Stephen  re- 
solved to  make  an  attempt  upon  the  Lombard,  thinking  that 
the  result  might  obviate  the  necessity  of  a journey  into 
France.  Accordingly,  though  quite. infirm,  on  Oct.  14.  753, 
he  set  out  for  Pavia,  accompanied  by  the  French  envoys,  the 
imperial  messenger,  and  a chosen  body  of  Roman  clergy  and 
nobles.  The  interview  took  place,  and  resulted  in  the  re- 
fusal of  Astolphus  to  accede  to  the  prayers  of  the  Pontiff. 
Learning  from  himself  the  intention  of  the  Pope  to  cross  in- 
to France,  the  Lombard  grew  furious,  but  did  not  dare  to 
impede  the  journey.  The  energetic  pastor  crossed  the  St. 
Bernard  in  midwinter  amid  much  suffering,  one  of  his  suite 
dying  from  exposure. 

In  the  royal  villa  of  Pontion  near  Chalons-sur-Mame,  in 
the  same  plains  which  had  witnessed  the  discomfiture  of 
Attila,  met  the  august  personages  whose  deliberations  were 
to  decide  the  fate  of  the  Hun’s  successor,  and  to  give  a new 
aspect  to  history.  The  result  of  the  interview  was  a justi- 
fication of  the  hopes  of  the  Pope.  The  king  swore  to  grant 
the  desires  of  the  Holy  See,  and  in  a solemn  diet  afterwards 
held  at  Quiercv  it  was  resolved  that  on  the  28th  of  April 
(754)  the  forces  of  France  should  march  against  the  Lom- 
bards. In  this  general  assembly  of  the  notables  of  the  king- 
dom, with  the  applause  of  all,  was  promulgated  that  treaty 
with  the  Holy  See  which,  renewed  and  confirmed  again  and 
again  by  Pepin  and  Charlemagne,  became  one  of  the  foun- 
dations of  European  public  law  in  the  middle  ages.  In  this 
treaty  or  pacticmis foedm . king  Pepin  declares:  We  promise 

to  thee,  Blessed  Peter,  keeper  of  the  keys  of  the  celestial 
kingdom  and  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  for  thee,  to  this 
thy  beloved  Vicar  Stephen,  excellent  Pope  and  Supreme 
Pontiff,  and  to  his  successors  for  all  time,  with  the  consent 
and  will  of  all  the  subscribing  Abbots,  Dukes  and  Counts  of 
the  Franks,  that  if  the  Lord  our  God  shall  through  His 
merits  and  through  holy  prayer  render  us  victorious  against 
the  Lombard  nation  and  kingdom  we  will  give  to  thee  for- 
cjyer  and  to  thy  Vicars,  all  the  states  and  duchies  and  forti- 
fied places  of  the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna  in  all  their  integrity, 
ns  well  as  everything  which  by  the  concession  of  the  Era- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


508 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


perors  used  to  belong  to  the  district,  and  which  will  be 
specially  described  below  by  defined  boundaries,  everything 
which  is  in  any  way  established  or*  found  within  said 
boundaries,  which  have  been  devastated,  invaded,  and  sub- 
tracted, and  have  in  any  way  been  alienated,  by  the  most 
wicked  Lombard  race,  no  power  within  the  same  limits  being 
reserved  to  its  and  to  our  successors,  unless  only  that  we  may  gain 
prayers  and  the  repose  of  our  soul , and  that  by  You  ami  your 
people  toe  be  styled  Patrician  of  the  Romans”  (1).  Here  follow 
the  boundaries  of  the  territories  ceded  to  the  Holy  See. 

The* expedition  against  Astolphus  set  out,  and  the  Pontiff 
accompanied  it.  The  pass  of  Susa  was  carried  by  the 
Franks,  and  after  witnessing  an  immense  slaughter  of  his 
followers,  the  Lombard  king  shut  himself  up  in  Pavia.  But 
the  spirits  of  the  foe  had  so  fallen,  that  Pepin  soon  reduced 
the  place,  and  listening  to  the  prayers  of  the  Pontiff,  accorded 
the  defeated  prince  comparatively  honorable  conditions. 
Besides  a rather  small  indemnity  of  war,  he  gave  forty  noble 
hostages  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  of  peace,  the 
principal  of  which  was  the  restoration  to  the  Romans  of  the 
Exarchate,  the  Pentapolis,  and  all  other  places  taken  from 
them.  But  scarcely  had  Pepin  recrossed  the  Alps,  when  the 
perfidy  of  Astolphus  was  made  manifest.  Not  only  did  he 
refuse  to  comply  with  the  treaty  of  Pavia,  but  he  commenced 
new  depredations,  and  even  conspired  for  the  assassination  of 
Pope  Stephen.  The  holy  Pontiff,  already  suffering  from  an 
attack  which  in  France  had  nearly  sent  him  to  the  grave,  was 
seriously  affected  by  these  misfortunes.  He  thrice  appealed 
by  letter  to  the  French  king,  but  that  monarch  delayed  to 
act,  perhaps  because  he  was  then  dealing  the  final  blow  to 
the  Saracens  and  sending  them  forever  beyond  the  Pyrenees, 
perhaps  because  he  confided  in  the  ability  of  diplomacy  to 
forestall  any  necessity  of  military  procedure.  In  the  month 
of  January,  756y  the  Lombards  began  the  siege  of  Rome,  and 


(1)  The  title  of  “ Roman  Patrician,"  In  the  olden  time,  was  triven  to  very  few,  and  only 
for  very  distinguished  sen  ices.  Clovis  had  reeeived  the  honor,  and  Pepin  was  anxious 
to  bear  a title  which,  as  it  then  signified  “Defender."  would  increase  hia  consequence 
in  the  eyes  of  all  Christian  jieoples.  He  receded  it  from  Pope  Stephen  on  the  day  of  his  eftr- 
onution  by  that  PontifT.  He  had  already  been  anointed  kinjr  by  St.  Boniface,  but  he  wished 
to  still  further  secure  the  pro>peet.s  of  his  family,  and  so  on  .July  the  Pope  performed 
the  solemn  function,  onneodmj?  the  same  hull;  r t.;  the  queen.  Drrtmda  and  to  roy?l 
princes,  Clui.es  and  Curlonun. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  rAPAL  DOMINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  STATES.  509 

it  had  lasted  three  months,  when  suddenly  Astolphus  broke 
up  his  camp  and  hurried  towards  the  Alps  to  meet  once  more 
the  advancing  Franks.  Forced  again  to  shut  himself  up  in 
Pavia,  the  perfidious  monarch  soon  implored  the  mercy  of 
the  victor,  who  granted  it  after  exacting  a renewal  of  the 
former  engagements  and  a large  indemnity  in  money  for  his 
army.  A new  diploma  was  then  issued  by  Pepin,  confirming 
to  the  Pope  the  previous  donation,  and  Fulrad,  abbot  of  St. 
Denis,  was  sent  as  commissioner  from  city  to  city  to  receive 
the  keys  in  the  name  of  the  conqueror,  and  to  place  them 
upon  the  tomb  of  St  Peter  in  token  of  homage. 

These  are  the  naked  facts  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  ttye 
Papal  dominion.  On  the  score  of  legitimacy,  no  European 
dynasty  can  show  so  good  a record ; in  the  history  of  the 
foundation  of  all  other  monarchies  will  be  found  either  a de- 
fiance of  the  papular  will  or  a shameless  robbery  of  a legit- 
imate claimant  or  a wanton  shedding  of  innocent  blood. 
‘ Like  the  Nile,”  says  De  Maistre,  (1),  “sovereignty  likes  to 
hide  its  head.’  This  is  true  in  more  ways  than  one,  but 
while  it  may  be  difficult  to  trace  the  precise  origin  of  Pontifi- 
cal rule,  especially  in  the  Duchy  of  Rome,  we  find  nothing 
of  which  to  be  ashamed.  The  people  of  Rome  and  the  Ex- 
archate had  been  shamelessly  abandoned  by  their  Emperor; 
they  appealed  to  their  natural  protector,  to  him  who  for  many 
years  had  been  their  ruler  in  nearly  all  but  name  ; a friend- 
ly power  intervenes,  ejects  the  usurper,  and  hands  over  the 
conquered  territory,  not  to  him  whose  imbecility,  neglect 
and  cowardice,  had  destroyed  every  claim  to  allegiance,  but 
to  him  to  whom  the  people  principally  owed  their  deliver- 
ance, and  to  whom — which  should  especially  please  those 
who  idolize  the  popular  will — the  multitude  wished  the 
sovereignty  to  be  given. 

If  the  facts  above  related  unfold  the  true  origin  of  the  Pon- 
tifical dominion  in  the  Roman  States,  the  Papal  claims  were 
founded  principally,  at  least,  so  far  as  they  depended  upon 
written  law,  upon  the  cession  by  Pepin,  and  the  justice  of 
that  cession  can  be  deduced  only  from  the  right  of  conquest 
acquired  by  the  French  monarch.  To  the  nostrils  of  most 

(t)  The  Po))f.  1).  III.,  c.  C. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


510 


BTUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  as  this  right  of  conquest  bears  an  unpleasant  odor ; there 
arise  memories  of  Poland  and  Ireland  which  render  us  res- 
tive when  it  is  put  forward.  Scili,  a generality  should  not 
be  deduced  from  one  or  two  particulars,  and  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  public  law  does  and  always  has  recognized 
this  right,  and  that  in  many  cases  it  is  in  accordance  with 
strict  common  sense.  But  little  reflection  is  needed  to  dis- 
cover one  of  those  cases  in  the  conquest  of  the  Roman  States 
by  Pepin.  And  now  for  a few  remarks  upon  the  manner  in 
which  this  king  treated  the  imperial  claims  to  the  provinces 
which  Byzantium  had  failed  to  protect. 

In  the  preliminary  proceedings  at  Pontion,  and  in  the 
solemn  deliberations  at  Quiercv,  everything  shows  that 
the  Pope,  the  king,  and  the  Frank  nobles,  regarded  the  im- 
perial authority  in  Rome  as  definitely  forfeited.  When 
the  Pontiff  presented  his  views  and  wishes,  he  did  not 
speak  as  did  Pope  Zachary  when  he  asked  Liutprand  for 
the  restitution  of  Ravenna,  that  is,  using  the  phrases  prop- 
er to  an  agent  of  the  empire.  The  sovereignty  of  Coprony- 
mus  is  entirely  and  formally  ignored,  and  Stephen  ad- 
dresses Pepin  in  the  name  of  an  independent  Italy,  and  in 
his  own  name,  as  the  representative  and  protector  of  the 
Italian  peoples.  On  his  part,  Pepin  treats  with  the  Pope  as 
with  a sovereign,  his  peer,  or  rather,  he  enters  into  obli- 
gations with  St  Peter  in  the  person  of  his  successor.  There 
is  not  a word  of  the  Emperor  or  of  his  claims,  unless  indeed  in 
one  passage  where  he  so  speaks  as  to  show  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a doubt  that  he  regarded  the  power  of  the  empire  in 
Italy  as  at  an  end,  because  of  the  Emperor’s  own  implicit 
abdication.  This  abdication  he  assumes  as  at  least  defac- 
t > from  the  concession  made  to  the  Pontiff,  which  gave  him 
full  permission  to  provide  for  the  deliverance  and  safety 
of  the  Exarchate,  et  as  he  might  deem  best  (1).  Pepin’s 
denial  of  the  imperial  claims  is  shown  more  forcibly  in  his 
treatment  of  Carloman,  his  own  brother,  wdien,  fearing  lest 
the  Lombard  would  revenge  upon  his  monastic  brethren 
his  own  refusal  to  obey,  the  royal  mouk  left  his  monastery 
of  Monte  C issino,  and  crossing  into  France,  endeavored  to 

(1)  Onlex  d,pl-  Ltmgt'h..  no.  C81 


Digitized  by  UjOOQle 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINION  IN  THE  ROMAN  STATES.  511 


induce  Pepin  to  abandon  tlie  projected  expedition  (1).  Ac- 
cording to  Anastasias,  he  was  met  with  a determined  re- 
fusal, his  royal  brother  being  resolved  ‘ with  his  whole 
strength  to  combat  for  the  cause  of  the  Holy  Church  of  God , 
as  he  had  already  promised  the  blessed  Pontiff.”  And  to 
the  treaty  of  Pavia  the  subscribing  parties  were  the  Rom- 
ans, Franks,  and  Lombards,  no  mention  being  made  of  any 
Byzantine  representative.  While  Pepin  was  yet  at  Pavia, 
he  was  waited  upon  by  Gregory,  first  imperial  secretary, 
who  begged  him,  in  the  name  of  Copronymus,  to  restore  the 
Exarchate  to  the  empire.  The  Frank  angrily  spurned 
the  offered  bribes,  and  answered  that  he  had  undertaken  the 
campaign  with  no  hope  of  human  favor,  but  solely  for  love 
of  St.  Peter,  and  that  no  treasure  could  induce  him  to  take 
from  the  Apostle  what  he  had  already  given  to  him.  It  is 
plain  then  that  at  this  time  the  imperial  authority  was  no 
longer  acknowledged  in  the  Roman  States.  It  had  been 
spurned  by  the  people  as  both  inefficacious  for  good  and 
accompanied  by  cruel  tyranny.  The  Pope,  who  had  ever 
respected  it,  and  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  Romans  to 
its  yoke,  was  compelled  in  charity  to  his  immediate  flock, 
to  yield  to  the  pressure  of  circumstances  and  to  recognize, 
in  the  premises,  the  right  of  revolt.  The  Emperor  himself 
had  forfeited  all  claim  to  the  allegiance  of  the  Romans  by 
his  neglect  of  the  first  and  fundamental  duty  of  a sovereign, 
the  care  of  his  people,  that  duty  which  forms  the  only 
reason  of  existence  for  any  government  whatever.  The 
Frencli  nation,  then  the  most  powerful  in  Europe,  and  the 
most  authoritative  in  the  formation  of  public  law,  had  re- 
jected the  imperial  claims  and  given  the  conquered  prov- 
inces to  the  See  of  Rome.  The  Lombards  solemnly  recog- 
nized the  Pontifical  dominion  by  the  treaty  of  Pavia.  From 
the  year  754,  a new  era  was  inaugurated  in  the  political 
world,  and  was  started  that  long  list  of  mitred  kings,  who, 
to  say  the  least,  have  reigned  more  in  justice  and  in  char- 
ity, and  made  fewer  mistakes,  than  any  other  dynasty  on 
earth  (2). 

(1)  Annals  of  Eginhard , mi.  7M. 

(2)  We  would  ask  the  n*ader’s  attention  to  the  following  remarks  of  Cantd  : “ The  origi- 
nal of  the  donation  of  Pepin  Is  lost ; the  act  usually  adduced  is  not  genuine.  Rut  the  chronl 


Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


CHAPTER  XLL 


TERRITORIAL  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINIONS,  FROM 
THE  8TH  CENTURY  TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY. 

The  Roman  Republic , mod  rated  by  the  Popes  (730  764). 
From  the  year  731  to  741,  occur  the  expressions  ‘‘Republic 
of  the  Romans,”  "Republican  Association,”  “ Body  of  the 
Roman  Army,”  etc.  (1)  The  edict  of  Leo  the  Isaurian,  is- 
sued in  730,  ordering  the  destruction  of  sacred  images,  had 
produced  a general  revolt  among  the  Italians,  and  the  Popes 
vainly  endeavored  to  keep  the  Romans  in  obedience  to  the 

clers  leave  us  In  no  doubt  as  to  such  a donation  having  been  made.  It  embraced  Ravenna,  Rl- 
nnnl,  Pesaro,  Cesena,.Fano,  Slnlguglia,  Jesi,  Forlimpopoll,  Forll  (with  the  castle  of  Sussu  bio), 
Montefeltro.  Aceragio,  Monlucati,  Serra,  Castel  San  Mariano,  Bobro,  Urbino,  Cagli,  Luculi. 
Agubblo,  Comacchio,  Narni ; some  even  Include  the  district  from  Luni  to  Suria,  with  Cor- 
sica  Some  (Pfistkr  : History  o/  the  German *,  v.  1,  p.  tOJ.  SPITTLKR;  Hist.,  v.  2, 

8 5)  have  pretended  that  the  donation  conferred  ouly  the  use  of  the  properties  comprised 
n the  mentioned  districts,  and  not  the  sovereignty,  which  they  declare  to  have  been  reserved 
by  Pepin  to  himself  aud  his  successors;  or,  if  the  sovereignty  was  included.  It  was  not 
really  transferred  (Sismondi:  Hal.  Repult.^v.  I).  How  can  this  be,  when  the  Lombards 
and  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  having  quarrelled  with  the  Pope,  robbed  him  of  his  jurisdic- 
tion, and  not  of  his  properties  ? Again,  we  see  the  Popes  appointing  judges  and  other  func- 
tionaries in  the  cities  donuted  (Caroline  Otdices  nos.  .>1.  .'4,  T5).  When  Charlemagne,  in 
78 1,  wished  to  take  some  ancient  columns  from  Ravenna,  he  asked  permission  from  the  Pope. 
The  Pontiffs,  at  that  time,  speak  of  ‘our  city  of  Rome,  our  Roman  people,*  knowing  that 
they  have  taken  the  place  of  the  exarchs.  Nay,  It  can  be  proved,  that,  before  the  donation 
of  Pepiu,  the  Popes  exercised  Jurisdiction,  by  popular  consent,  in  many  of  those  territories. 

Pepin  acknowledged  this,  when  he  styled  his  donation  a restitution At  this  point 

historians  deem  themselves  inevitably  obliged  to  digress,  and  talk  about  the  ambition  of  the 
Popes,  about  their  greed  of  power  and  of  wealth,  about  the  evils  which  accrued  to  Italy  be- 
cause-through  the  fault  of  the  I’outiffs— she  did  not  fall  entirely  Into  the  power  of  the 
foreigner.  I have  thought  it  not  only  permissible,  but  a duty,  whenever  history  commands 
me  to  do  so,  to  say  the  contrary  to  what  mere  opinion  or  force  may  wish  : for  I have  never 
felt  sufficient  sympathy  with  tyranny,  to  deem  it  always  In  the  right,  simply  because  It  is 
the  owner  of  armies  and  of  thrones.  In  this  very  matter,  I am  content  with  an  investiga- 
tion Into  the  facts  of  the  case.  Behold,  on  the  one  side,  the  emperors  of  Constantinople, 
illegitimate  successors  of  the  ancient  C'resars,  who  have  acquired  Italy  by  conquest,  and 
who  have  treated  her  like  a oouquered  land,  depriving  her  of  her  oiden  privileges.  On  the 
other  band,  you  have  foreign  kings  (if,  as  some  hold,  they  were  not  foreign,  because  they 
were  long  in  possession,  and  because  they  possessed  no  authority  in  foreign  parts,  then  the 
Turk  Is  no  foreigner  to  the  Greek)  who  swear  and  forswear,  devastate  cities,  exterminate 
populations,  put  everything  to  Are  and  sword.  In  front  of  all  these,  behold  venerable  priests, 
oh  >«en  by  the  people  and  from  the  people,  who  prav,  write,  make  processions,  send  embassies, 
go  in  person  — and  all  this,  merely  to  implore  pence  and  Justice;  when  they  raise  a handful 
of  troo  h,  it  is  for  simple  defence.  Before  these  three  parties,  desirous  of  preserving  or  of 
conquering  Italy,  I notice  millions  of  Italians,  whose  destiny  is  to  be  decided,  and  who  have 
been  despoiled  by  the  emperor  and  the  kings,  now  praying  and  weeping  with  the  Pope. 
How  much  have  they  not  suffered  under  the  dominion, of  that  Greek,  distant,  irresolute, 
arrogant,  a tyrant  over  consciences,  a dominion  made  worse  by  thegreed  of  ministers,  who 

were  obedient  even  to  the  extreme  of  becoming  assassins If  a hope  of  arising  out  of 

thelr(mlsery  remained  to  t ie  Italians,  they  could  place  it  only  in  that  Pontiff  whom,  for  a long 
time,  the  Romans  had  regarded  as  their  representative, as  t he  defender  of  their  rights, the  only 
consoler  of  the  oppressed,  as  he  was  the  only  person  who  dared  to  demand  Justice  from  the 
oppressors;  that  Pontiff  whose  very  character  made  him  Just  and  amiable,  and  who 
caused  the  nations  to  yet  venerate  the  Roman  name,  which,  through  the  fault  of  others,  had 
conn*  to  is*  despised.  The  will  of  a people  did  not  then  have,  nor  does  it  now  have,  much 
weight  in  the  scales  of  polities : but  history  ought  to  observe,  which  is  the  cause,  the  tri- 
umph of  which  lessens  the  griefs  and  injustices  suffered  by  that  multitude  of  men  which 
it  too  much  neglects : hlstorv,  at  least  after  the  lapse  of  ages  has  quieted  the  passions, 
ought  to  be  written  with  unalterable  Justice,  and  ought  to  be  cursed  when  it  does  Dot 
sympathize  with  the  oppressor!.*’—  Univ.  Hist..  b.  ix.,  c.  13. 

(1)  Rexpublica  Romannmm  cnmpag**  S.  Reiyuhlicw corpus  Christo  dilert~ 

wn  excrc.it us  Romani.  Anastasius  Libr.  : T.tft  of  Gregory  III. 

512 


Digitized  by  vj.ooQLe 


TERRITORIAL  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINIONS.  513 

Byzantine  government.  Finally,  Pope  Gregory  HI  assumed 
the  direction  of  affaira  in  Rome  and  its  Duchy,  maintained 
their  tie  facto  independence  against  the  exarch  of  Ravenna, 
and  sought  the  aid  of  Charles  Martel,  making  him  Patri- 
cian or  Defender  of  Rome  (1).  The  confines  of  the  Duchy  of 
Rome  were,  at  this  time,  nearly  identical  with  those  of 
the  modern  province  of  Campagna  di  Roma . 

Donation  of  Pepin  (754). 

Pope  St  Stephen  II.  went  to  France  in  753,  begged  the 
aid  of  Pepin  against  the  Lombards,  and  at  the  assembly  of 
Quercy-sur-Oise,  was  made  the  treaty  given  in  the  previous 
chapter.  King  Astolphus  having  failed  in  his  promise  to  re- 
store the  territories  stolen  from  the  Holy  See, Pepin  beseiged 
the  Loinbard  in  Pavia,  and  compelled  him  to  yield.  By 
this  restitution  and  the  donation  of  Pepin,  the  Popes  ac- 
quired the  Exarchate  of  Ravenna,  which  included  the  terri- 
tory embracing,  in  modern  times,  the  Ferrarese,  the  Bolog- 
nese, the  Romagna,  the  Duchy  of  Urbino,  and  part  of  the 
March  of  Ancona.  The  Lombards  retained  possession  of 
the  Marches  of  Camerino  and  of  Fermo,  of  the  Duchies  of 
Spoleto  and  Benevento,  and  of  Tuscany. 

Donation  of  Charlemagne  (774)  and  Voluntary  Choice  of  the 
Spoletans  and  Anconitans. 

Amastasius  tells  us  that  the  Spoletans  and  Anconitans, 
the  people  of  Fermo  and  of  other  districts,  voluntarily  gave 
themselves  in  subjection  to  Pope  Adrian  I.  Dora  Yaisette 
( Geog . Ecdes.,  v.  3)  holds  that  the  Duchy  of  Spoleto  was 
given  by  Charlemagne;  Lamartiniere  (Hid.  Did.)  places 
this  donation  at  778,  after  the  death  of  a Frankish  duke 
named  Henry,  who  had  received  Spoleto  from  Charlemagne. 
The  province  of  Sabina  is  spoken  of  by  Louis  the  Compli- 
ant, as  having  been  accorded,  in  its  entirety,  to  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter,  by  a written  donation  of  our  father,  the  Em- 
peror Charles.  ” By  the  donation  of  Charlemagne,  or  by  the 
will  of  the  peoples,  or  by  both — for  these  two  theories  are 

O)  I M.f  b.  2,  c.  90.  Fllury  ; b.  42.  * 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


514 


8TUDIl£S  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


easily  reconciled — the  Holy  See  possessed,  not  only  the  Ex- 
archate, between  the  Adriatic  and  the  Appenines,  and  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Adige  to  Ancona  ; but  Parma,  Reggio  and 
Modena;  Perugia,  Spoleto,  Sabina,  the  Marches  of  Camerino 
and  Chieti  (Teate);  and  all  that  part  of  Tuscany  that  lies 
south  of  the  Cecina,  together  with  the  territory  between  the 
Tuscan  line  and  the  Tiber. 

Contests  of  the  Pontiff-Kings  with  Roman  Factions  and  the 

Emperor 8, 

During  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  the  Papal  States 
present  changes  as  varied  as  those  of  a kaleidoscope.  Most 
of  the  cities  and  fiefs  are  in  the  hands  of  turbulent  lorda 
who  regard  themselves  as  independent ; the  great  Countess 
Matilda  alone  possesses  nearly  all  of  central  Italy.  In  932, 
Alberic  was  really  sovereign  at  Rome,  the  Pontifical  author* 
ity  being  confiued  entirely  to  spirituals.  In  1028,  the  duke 
of  Spoleto  becomes  a simple  governor,  named  by  the  Emper- 
or. In  1047,  the  Normans  seize  Benevento,  but  are  expelled 
by  Henry  III.,  who  cedes  the  duchy  to  Pope  Leo  IX.,  in 
return  for  the  feudal  rights  of  the  Holy  See  in  the  bishopric 
of  Bamberg.  The  Normans  defeat  the  Papal  troops  who^ 
under  Leo  IX.  in  person,  try  to  recover  Benevento.  but  the 
same  Normans  afterwards  conquer  the  duchy  for  Gregory 
VII.  The  Pontiffs  Gregory  VII.,  Victor  III.,  Urban  II.,  Pas- 
chal II.,  Gelasius  II.,  Innocent  II.,  Lucius  II.,Eugenius  III., 
Adrian  IV.,  Alexander  1IL  and  Lucius  III.,  are  exiled  from 
Rome  either  by  factions,  or  by  the  Emperors,  in  the  struggle 
about  investitures.  For  a moment,  Rome  becomes  a repub- 
lic under  Arnold  of  Brescia.  But  the  temporal  power  grows 
stronger  abroad.  The  Norman  conquerors  of  the  Sicilies. 
Croatia,  and  Dalmatia  (1076),  Hungary  and  Corsica  (1079) 
Provence  (1081).  Spain  (1074),  Portugal  (1142),  Denmark 
(1159), become  vassals  of  the  Pontiffs  and  pay  tribute  to  them. 
The  Countess  Matilda  gives  all  her  territories  to  Pope  St. 
Gregory  VII.,  but  dying  in  11J.5,  war  ensues  between  Romo 
and  the  Emperor,  because  of  her  will.  In  1120,  Duke  William 
does  homage  to  Pope  Calixtus  H.  for  the  Puglia  and  Cal- 
abria. In  1208,  the  duchy  of  Ferrara  falls  into  the  pos- 


Digitized  by 


Google 


TERRITORIAL  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINIONS.  51& 

session  of  the  House  of  Este.  In  1209,  the  Emperor 
Otho  IV.  yields  part  of  Matilda’s  territories  to  Pope  In- 
nocent III,  but  this  concession  is  soon  revoked.  In  1210, 
Salinguerra,  who  has  seized  the  lordship  of  Ferrara,  receives 
from  Otho  IV.  twenty -four  great  fiefs  in  the  Bomagna  ; ex- 
communicated by  Innocent  III.,  he  receives  the  investiture 
from  the  Pontiff.  In  1212,  this  Pope  forces  Marquard  and 
Conrad  to  surrender  the  Duchy  of  Spoleto  and  the  March  of 
Ancona  ; he  recovers  the  Patrimony  of  8t.Peter  (1),  but  can- 
not deprive  the  archbishop  of  Bavenna  of  the  government  of 
that  city.  He  entirely  restores  the  Papal  sovereignty  of 
Borne,  the  senate  being  no  longer  chosen  by  the  people  ; he 
abolishes  the  dignity  of  Consul, and  gives  the  Prefect  that 
investiture  which  he  used  to  receive  from  the  Emperor. 

Municipal  and  Feudal  Italy  in  the  13/A  Century . 

The  Pope  was,  at  this  time,  sovereign  de  jure  of  The 
Patrimony,  the  Campagna,  the  March  of  Ancona,  the  Duchy 
of  Spoleto,  southern  Tuscany,  the  Sabina,  and  the  Bomag- 
na ; but  in  the  Bomagna,  the  March,  and  the  Duchy,  all  the 
cities  had  submitted  to  tyrants  who  pretended  to  hold  from 
the  Emperor,  and  in  reality  acknowledged  no  superior. 
Even  in  the  Campagna,  many  powerful  families  divided  the 
political  authority,  and  were  always  at  war  with  the  Pontiff. 
In  fine,  the  States  of  the  Church  were  a confused  assemblage 
of  independent  cities,  corporations,  and  lordships.  Around 
Bologna,  ruled  the  Geremii ; around  Bavenna,  the  Polenta  ; 
around  Bimini,  the  Malatesta;  around  Urbino,  theMontefel- 
tri ; the  Sabina  and  the  Campagna  were  divided  among  the 
Orsini,  Colonna,  Frangipani,  Savelli,  and  Gaetani  families  ; 
Bologna,  Bavenna,  Commachio,  Imola,  Faenza,  Forli,  Cesena 
Bimini,  Urbino,  were  free  cities.  From  Innocent  III.  (d. 
1216)  to  Benedict  XI.  (el.  1303)  the  Pontiffs  were  nearly  con- 
stantly exiled  from  the  Eternal  City.  During  this  period, 
out  of  nineteen  Popes,  thirteen  were  elected  outside  Borne, 
and  were  not  allowed  to  dwell  in  their  capital.  In  1221, 

(1)  This  term  is  often  loosely  applied  to  the  Roman  States  4n  their  entirety,  but  it  should  be 
used  only  in  reference  to  that  portion  lylnjt  between  the  Tiber  and  the  modern. Tuscan  fron- 
tier. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


516 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


the  Emperor  pretended  to  confer  the  Romagna  upon  two 
counts  of  Hohenloke.  In  1229,  the  count  of  Toulouse  ceded 
the  marquisate  of  Provence  to  the  Holy  See.  In  1273, 
Philip  III.  gave  the  Venaissin  and  half  of  Avignon'  to 
Gregory  X.  In  1275.  the  family  of  Polenta  seized  upon  the 
Romagna,  but  in  1278  Nicholas  III.  obliged  the  Emperor 
Rudolph  to  admit  that  this  province  belonged  to  the  Holy 
See,  and  the  city  of  Bologna  submitted  to  the  Pontiff  In 
1281,  Martin  IV.  named  John  d’Eppe,  counsellor  of  the  king 
of  Sicily,  count  of  the  Romagna.  In  1288.  Nicholas  IY.  made 
John  Oolonna  marquis  of  Ancona,  and  Stephen  Colonna.  in 
1292,  was  made  count  of  the  Romagna,  by  the  same  Pontiff. 

Period  of  the  Papal  Residence  at  Avignon  (1309-1376). 

Clement  Y.  withdrew  the  lordship  of  Ferrara  from  the 
Venetians,  and  the  marquises  of  the  House  of  Este  became 
vassals  of  the  Holy  See  for  that  fief.  'The  duchy  of  Urbino 
was  restored  to  the  Popes,  in  1322.  Parma  was  re-acquired, 
in  1326  In  1320,  Bologna  revolted,  and  resumed  its  repub- 
lican form  of  government  In  1347-48,  republic  at  Rome  un- 
der Cola  di  Rienzo.  In  1348,  Clement  VI.  bought  Avignon 
from  Jane,  queen  of  Naples.  In  1353,  Innocent  VI.  sent  the 
legate,  Alvarez  Albornoz,  into  Italy  to  recover  all  the  terri- 
tories of  the  Church.  In  1376,  end  of  the  “ Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity ” at  Avignon.  Gregory  XI.  returned  to  the  Eternal 
City,  and  finding  the  Lateran  a ruin,  he  fixed  his  court  at  the 
Vatican. 


The  Popes  Recover  their  Influence  in  Italy . 

In  1392,  the  republic  of  Perugia  submits  to  Pope  Boni- 
face IX.,  but,  in  1416,  the  condottiere , Fortebraccio,  establish- 
es a principality  and  holds  it  for  life.  In  1420,  Martin  V. 
takes  Bologna  from  the  Bentivoglio.  In  1440,  the  Vene- 
tians reduce  the  republic  of  Ravenna.  In  1442,  Perugia  sub- 
mits to  Eugenius  IV.,  but  nearly  all  the  cities  of  the  Patri- 
mony, of  the  Romagna,  and  of  the  March  of  Ancona,  revolt, 
and  fall  under  the  sway  of  independent  lords. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


TERRITORIAL  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  PAPAL  DOMINIONS.  517 
Nepotism  ; Alienation  of  Papal  Territories. 

In  1456,  Calixtus  III.  creates  his  nephew  Peter  duke  of 
Spoleto.  In  1471,  and  84,  Sinigaglia  and  Mondavio  are 
made  principalities  by  Sixtus  IV.,  in  favor  of  his  nephew, 
John  della  Rovere  ; Imola  and  Forli  are  given  to  another 
nephew,  Jerome  Riario,  while  Frederick  of  Montefeltro  is 
made  duke  of  Urbino.  In  1497,  Alexander  YL  makes  a 
-ducliy  of  Benevento,  for  his  son  John,  and  in  1501,  he  makes 
his  son  Caesar  duke  of  Romagna. 


Consolidation  of  the  Papal  Dominion  (1). 

In  1503,  Julius  II.  expels  the  Borgias  from  the  Romagna, 
.and  from  1504  to  1506,  he  takes  from  them  many  places  in 
the  March  of  Ancona.  He  also  deprives  the  Bentivoglio  of 
Bologna,  and  the  Baglioni  of  Perugia.  In  1509,  Ravenna, 
and  in  1511,  Parma  and  Piacenza,  are  restored  to  the  Holy 
See.  In  1515,  Leo  X.  cedes  Parma  and  Piacenza  to  Francis  L 

( 1 ) Cant  ti  thus  speaks  of  the  change  which,  about  this  period,  was  effected  In  the  government 
of  the  Papal  States*  ” In  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  the  Middle  Age.  so  opposed  to  that 
absolutism  of  the  Stale  which  has  been  introduced  by  the  moderns,  the  Popes  used  to  carry 
on  their  government  in  union  with  the  people,  that  Is,  with  the  Roman  Republic.  When 
the  Poutiffs  were  far  away,  this  Republic  so  prevailed,  that  Cola  cited  the  emperor  and 
electors  of  Germauy  to  uccount  for  their  titles  to  the  Roman  people.  It  was  the  cardinal  Al- 
boruoz  who  tried  to  establish  a true  sovereignty,  after  the  fashion  that  was  then  be- 
coming genenU  ; he  destroyed  the  petty  lords,  recovered  the  cities— glad  to  obey  the  Pontiff, 
rather  than  these  tyrums— and  with  his  Egidian  ( (institutions,  he  guaranteed  many  priv- 
ileges ; taking  care,  nevertheless  to  secure  a free  exercise  of  sovereignty,  by  means  of  a union 
of  the  provinces.  These  Constitutions  remained  the  real  public  law'  of  the  Romagna,  they  were 
printed  in  UT-,  and  afterwards,  with  various  additions.  The  Holy  see,  conforming  itMlfto 
the  ideas  of  kingcraft  then  becoming  prevalent,  endeavored  to  enlarge  its  prerogatives, 
while  the  provinces  jealously  clung  to  their  own  statutes:  the  Pontifical  sovereignty  remained, 
after  the  ancient  manner,  nominal,  rather  than  despotic.  Affairs  continued  in  this 
state  until  the  revolution  of  1797,  which  dispossessed  the  Pope ; afterwards,  the  restoration  of 
181 1 reinstated  him.  The  adversaries  of  the  temporal  dominion  endeavor  to  show  that  this 
government  of  the  Popes  used  to  be  exercisdd,  only  independence  from  (he  imperial  suprema- 
-cy.  Let  us  ignore  all  history,  and  accept  this  assertion  of  the  royalists.  But  In  1804,  the 
Holv  Roman  Empire  had  ceased  to  be,  and  all  the  powers  that  had  derived  from  it  were 
declared  to  be  possessed  of  full  authority : in  the  Congress  of  1815  (Vienna),  it  was  agreed 
that  all  mediate  Jurisdiction  should  cease,  and  that  each  government  should  enjoy  full  and 
independent  sovereignty.  Therefore,  the  Popes  al90  became  absolute  masters  of  their  State, 
as  far  as  the  kings  w*ere  concerned.  In  regard  to  their  people,  the  Popes  should  have  re- 
spected the  privileges  conceded  of  old.  and  hitherto  maintained.  But  these  privileges  had 
•been  abolished  by  the  unlimited  sway  of  the  usurpers,  accustomed  to  unconditional  des- 
potism ; and  the  restorers— enemies  to  history,  as  are  all  who  wish  to  tyrannize— wished  that, 
■especially  In  Italy  no  constitutions  or  written  rights  of  the  people  should  exist.  Therefore 
they  compelled  the  Pone  to  become  an  absolute  king.  Just  as  they  were,  and  it  was  then 
that  the  cardinal  Oonsalvi,  not  adverse  to  the  new  ideas,  caused  the  Pope  to  issue  the  mntu 
propria,  which  systematized  the  public  administration  under  a general  law.  Instead  of  the 
multifarious  and  particular  ones  of  old ; from  the  centre  had  to  issue  all  appointments  of 
magistrates,  edicts  financial  enactments ; of  all  the  modern  ravings,  only  one— the 
law  of  conscription— w’as  not  actuated,  and  yet  that  one  was  indispensable,  if  the  others 
were  to  be  kept  in  force.  Absolutism,  therefore,  was  an  entirely  new  thing  in  the  Papal 
dominions,  and  when  Pius  IX.  initiated  and  blessed  the  Italian  movement,  he  protested,  in 
the  Constitution  of  March  14, 1848.  that  he  did  nothing  but  ‘restore  some  ancient  Institutions, 
which  were,  for  a long  time,  the  mirror  of  the  wisdom  of  our  august  predecessors,1  and 
that,  * in  the  olden  time,  our  Communes  had  the  privilege  of  governing  themselves,  under 
laws  chosen  by  themselves,  with  the  sovereign  sanction.1  Behold  one  of  the  thousand  proofs 
that  liberty  Is  old,  and  despotism  new  : but  to-dav.  all  moral  and  political  sense  being  lost, 
4hename  of  one  is  bestowed  on  the  other.”— Heretics  of  Italy , Discourse  VIIT. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


618 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


of  France.  In  1519,  this  Pontiff  re-acquires  Urbino,  and 
in  1520,  Perugia.  In  1530,  Parma  and  Piacenza  are  re-an- 
nexed. In  1532,  the  March  of  Ancona  is  definitively  an- 
nexed. In  1597,  Clement  VIII.  takes  possession  of  Ferrara, 
the  ducal  house  being  extinct.  In  1626,  the  duke  of  Urbino 
gives  all  his  territories  to  the  Holy  See,  viz.,  the  duchy  of 
Urbino,  the  counties  of  Montefeltro  and  Gubbio,  the  lord- 
ship of  Pesaro,  and  the  vicariate  of  Sinigaglia.  In  1663,  the 
county  of  Avignon  is  seized  by  the  French,  but  is  restored 
in  1664;  again  seized  in  1687,  it  is  restored  in  1690 ; seized, 
for  the  third  time,  in  1768,  it  is  restored  in  1774. 

Treaty  of  Tolentino , Feb.  19,  1797. 

By  this  treaty  the  Papal  sovereignty  lost  the  Bolognese, 
the  Ferrarese,  and  the  Romagna,  which  were  incorporated 
into  the  “ Cis-alpine  Republic,”  and  also  the  counties  of 
Avignon  and  the  Venaissin,  which  were  reunited  to  France. 
In  Feb.,  1808,  Napoleon  I.  occupied  Rome  ; and  in  April  the 
territories  of  Ancona,  Macerata,  Fermo,  and  Urbino,  were 
united  to  the  Kingdom  of  Italy.”  In  May,  1809,  the  rest 
of  the  Papal  dominions  were  annexed  to  the  French  empire. 
The  Congress  of  Vienna  restored,  in  1815,  all  the  dominions 
of  the  Holy  See,  excepting  Avignon  and  the  Venaissin, 
which  remained  definitively  united  to  France. 

Unitarian  Movement  of  1 859. 

The  Franco-Sardinian  war  against  Austria,  in  1859,  en- 
tailed the  evacuation  of  Bologna  by  the  Austrians  on  June 
12th,  whereupon  the  Romagna  rebelled  against  the  Papal 
authority,  and  was  annexed  to  the  Sardinian  kingdom  in 
March,  1860.  In  the  following  summer,  Umbria  and  the 
Marches  revolted,  and  after  the  short  campaign  of  Castelfi- 
dardo,  Ancona  capitulated  to  the  Sardinians  on  Sept.  29. 
The  Papal  dominion  was  now  reduced  to  the  Patrimony,  the 
Sabina,  and  the  Campagna.  On  Sept.  20,  1870,  Rome  it- 
self was  occupied  by  the  troops  of  Victor  Emmanuel. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CHAPTER  XLIL 
St.  Boniface,  Apostle  of  Germany. 

The  student  who  is  desirous  of  a knowledge  of  the  first 
attempts  to  convert  the  tribes  of  Germany  to  the  faith  is 
referred  to  the  learned  work  of  Mamachi,  entitled  Chris- 
tian Origins  and  Antiquities , b.  2,  chap.  20.  Of  these  earlj 
endeavors  we  shall  only  remark  that  but  little  progress 
was  made  until  the  eighth  century,  when  these  barbaric 
hordes  were  destined  to  be  enlightened  by  some  offshoots 
of  their  own  race,  some  of  that  sturdy  Sf^xon  stock  which 
had  hurled  its  barbarism  against  the  isie  of  Britain,  but 
had  there  attained  a knowledge  of  Christianity  and  of  civil- 
ization. The  first  Anglo-Saxon  who  carried  the  cross  into 
the  home  of  his  ancestors  was  St.  Wilfrid.  Landing  ot 
the  coast  of  Friesland  in  675  (1),  he  succeeded  in  convert 
ing  several  chieftains  and  some  thousands  of  their  follow 
ers  (2).  Wilfrid’s  mission  among  the  Frisians  was,  how 
ever,  only  temporary,  as  he  was  on  his  way  to  Rome  to 
plead  his  cause,  his  zeal  having  exiled  him  from  England. 
The  first  permanent  missions  in  Germany  were  established 
by  Ecgbert,  a Northumbrian  priest  who  had  been  educated 
in  Ireland.  Confining  his  own  exertions  to  the  western 
islands,  he  at  first  sent  W^igbert  into  Friesland,  but  in  two 
years  this  missionary  returned  to  Ireland  with  a lament- 
able tale  of  failure.  The  hopes  of  Ecgbert  were  soon  re* 
vived  by  the  news  that  the  Franks,  under  Pepin  of  Heris* 
tal,  had  conquered  South  Friesland.  He  thought  that  as 
Pepin  was  a Christian,  he  would  second  the  efforts  of  those 
who  aimed  at  evangelizing,  and  therefore  civilizing  his 
new  subjects.  St.  Willibrord,  and  twelve  disciples  from 
Ireland,  were  therefore  sent,  to  meet  with  better  success 
than  their  predecessor  (3).  So  numerous  were  the  con- 

(h  ' his  na id*3!  wav.  applied  to  the  Germanic  countries  bordering  the  North  Sea. 

(2)  Knruu*-  chap.  25. 

From  tils  in'anev.  Willibrord  wa*.  educated  by  the  Irish  inonks  of  Bipun,  and  ha 
afterwards  stud'ad  Scripture  twelve  yeara  in  Ireland. 

519 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


520 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


verts  of  this  apostolic  band,  that  Pope  Sergius  consecrated 
Willibrord  as  bishop  of  Utrecht,  making  him  metropolitan 
of  Friesland,  with  authority  to  create  a competent  number 
of  suffragans.  Swidbert,  one  of  these  Saxon  missionaries, 
labored  among  the  Boructuarii,  the  inhabitants  of  the  mod- 
ern duchy  of  Berg.  Adelbert,  a royal  prince  of  Northum- 
bria, had  great  success  in  North  Holland.  Werenfrid  con- 
verted the  Batavi,  a tribe  that  inhabited  the  island  formed 
by  the  Khine  and  the  Wahal.  Wiro  (1),  Plechelm,  and 
Otger,  labored  among  the  people  of  Gueldres.  But  none  of 
these  warriors  of  the  cross  met  with  that  success  which 
crowned  the  efforts  of  him  who  was  destined  to  be  called 
the  “Apostle  of  Germany/*  St.  Boniface,  according  to 
English  writers,  who  seem  unconscious  of  any  possibility 
of  doubt  in  the  matter,  was  a West  Saxon,  and  born  about 
680  at  Crediton  in  Devonshire.  Certain  Irish  writers, 
however,  and  among  them  the  learned  Dr.  Moran  (2)  as 
confidently  assert  that  the  great  missionary  was  an  Irish- 
man. Marianus  Scotus,  a good  authority  in  such  a matter, 
plainly  says  that  he  was  “Irish,  both  by  father  and 
mother.’*  Considering,  however,  that  his  disciple,  Willi- 
bald, first  bishop  of  Achstat,  tells  us  in  the  Life  of  Boniface 
that  the  saint  studied,  when  about  thirteen  years  of  age, 
under  Wolphard  in  the  monastery  of  Exeter,  and  that  he 
afterwards  completed  his  scholastic  course  at  Nutscelle  in 
Winchester,  we  would  give  England  the  credit  of  his  train- 
ing, and  regard  his  nationality  as  uncertain.  Although 
certain  Protestant  authors  affect  to  sneer  at  what  they  call 
the  ignorance  of  Boniface,  he  seems  to  have  acquired,  such 
knowledge  as  the  civilized  world  could  at  that  time  impart; 
for  he  was  appointed  a professor  at  Nutscelle,  and  his 
school  was  greatly  frequented.  As  the  monasteries  were 
then  the  only  sources  of  knowledge  in  England,  it  is  safe  to 
conclude  that  the  scholastic  attainments  of  Boniface  were 
superior  to  those  of  most  Englishmen  of  the  day.  After 

(1)  Irish  writ-rs  claim  Wiro  as  their  countryman.  Alenin,  however,  atyli  8 him  an  An- 
glo-Saxon. Some  IriBh  authors  also  claim  Plechelm  and  Otger  for  Ireland. 

•2)  Morin  quotes  as  proof  the  monuments  published  in  reference  to  German  history  by 
Pert/.,  vol.  7 ( Immiclr  of  Marianus.  years  737.  745,  7<12,  705  : Tent  amen  Vitae  oi  8t.  Gall. 
I ritlx  mins,  he  says,  also  refers  St.  Boniface  to  Ireland.  See  Karin  lri*h  Church,  ».  i. 
c.  3.  Li.ig  ir.l,  who  m many  utlm;-  eas<>8  '-arelull v nn‘es  Irish  claims  to  those  ht»  r^ftard* 
RS'-iaxoni.  I’la'aM  tm  alln-i>it»  •’  m1**  r?  ‘f  ••  * " * Til  ' s’a.on  Chunk, 

chili*.  13.  butler  is  sm.iia  ly  uiiBit»pirious  of  any  uncertainty  on  the  point.  See  Lives- 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


ST.  BONIFACE,  APOSTLE  OF  GERMANY.  52t 

his  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  he  became  a member  of 
the  great  council  of  the  nation  ; and  Ina,  king  of  Wessex, 
gave  him  his  confidence  to  such  an  extent  that,  had  he  been 
ambitious,  he  might  have  received  the  highest  preferments. 
But  the  spirit  of  the  Apostolate  was  alive  in  the  heart  of 
the  young  priest,  and  with  the  reluctant  consent  of  his  ab- 
bot, Wibert,  he  set  out  in  716,  accompanied  by  three  com- 
panions, for  Friesland.  But  his  mission  was  in  vain. 
Pepin  was  dead,  and  his  son  Charles  was  opposed  by  a 
rival,  while  Radbode  of  the  independent  Frisians  was  pro- 
fiting by  the  opportunity  to  reconquer  the  provinces  which 
Pepin  had  annexed.  Paganism  was  again  triumphant  in 
Friesland,  and  Boniface  deemed  it  pruaent  to  return,  and 
to  await  in  England  a more  propitious  occasion.  Soon, 
however,  he  set  out  for  Rome  to  consult  with  Pope  Greg- 
ory II.,  taking  with  him  a recommendatory  letter  from 
Daniel,  bishop  of  Winchester,  The  Pontiff  was  so  im- 
pressed with  the  zeal  of  Boniface,  that  he  advised  him  to 
make  Germany  the  field  of  his  labors,  and  dismissed  him 
with  letters  to  the  princes  whose  territories  he  would  be 
obliged  to  cross.  Arriving  in  Thuringia,  he  found  many 
nominal  Christians  who  yet  retained  the  habits  of  Pagan- 
ism, and  were  led  by  a clergy,  few  in  number,  ignorant,  and 
irregular  in  morals.  He  at  once  busied  himself  in  the 
work  of  instruction  and  reformation,  but  hearing  of  the 
successes  of  the  Franks  in  Friesland,  he  resolved  to  return 
to  the  people  of  his  first  choice.  For  three  years  he  now 
labored  under  the  direction  of  Willibrord,  and  it  was  only 
on  the  discovery  that  this  prelate  designed  to  make  him  his 
successor  in  the  see  of  Utrecht,  that  he  fled  and  betook 
himself  to  the  country  of  the  Hessians  and  Old  Saxons. 

In  a few  years,  Pope  Gregory  II.  heard  that  many  thou- 
sands of  these  barbarians  had  been  brought  into  the  fold, 
and  he  summoned  our  saint  to  Rome  in  723.  When  he 
was  fully  informed  as  to  the  state  and  needs  of  the  German 
mission,  the  Pontiff*  resolved  to  confer  upon  Boniface  the 
episcopal  dignity.  Willibald  says  that  it  was  on  this  oc- 
casion that  the  Pope  changed  our  saint’s  own  name  of  Win- 
frid  to  that  of  Boniface,  by  which  name  he  is  now  generally 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


522 


8TUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


known  (1).  Having  taken  the  usual  oath  of  obedience  to 
the  Holy  See  (2),  he  returned  to  Hesse. 

St.  Boniface  now  set  himself  to  the  task  of  obtaining  re- 
cruits for  his  little  army  of  preachers.  His  letters  to  the 
bishops  and  abbots  of  England  resulted  in  a reinforcement 
of  many  zealous  assistants.  No  motives/'  says  Lingard, 
“ but  those  of  the  purest  zeal  could  have  supported  them 
under  the  numerous  privations  and  dangers  to  which  they 
were  continually  exposed.  Bread,  indeed,  they  were  able 
to  obtain  from  the  gratitude  of  their  neophytes,  and  the 
menaces  of  the  Franks  protected  them  from  the  insults  of  the 
vanquished  barbarians,  who  refused  to  listen  to  their  doc- 
trine ; but  for  clothing,  and  almost  every  other  neces- 
sary, they  were  compelled  to  depend  on  the  casual  benevo- 
lence of  their  distant  friends  ; and  the  fruits  of  their  labors 
were  frequently  destroyed,  and  their  lives  endangered,  by 
the  hostilities  of  the  tribes  that  still  retained  the  religion 
and  independence  of  their  fathers.  By  one  incursion  no  less 
than  thirty  churches  were  levelled  with  the  ground  " (3). 
In  a few  years  were  founded  the  great  monasteries  of  Fritz- 
lar,  Amelburg,  and  Fulda,  and  the  monks  placed  under  the 
strict  rule  of  St.  Benedict.  By  their  means,  cultivated 
ground  soon  took  the  place  of  the  forest,  and  cultivated 
minds  were  engendered  among  what  soon  began  to  assume 
the  semblance  of  a people.  Boniface  did  not  neglect  the 
training  of  women.  He  begged  Tetta,  abbess  of  Winburn.  to 
send  him  some  of  her  Sisters  for  so  important  an  object, 
and  so  many  English  ladies  volunteered,  that  he  soon  be- 
held the  wild  daughters  of  Germany  under  the  humaniziug 
influence  of  Lioba  at  Bischofsheim,  of  Tecla  at  Chitzengen, 

(1)  The  saint's  letters’ show  that  he  used  both  names  conjoin  tlj,'  many  years  before  his 
consecration. 

(*2)  The  oath  which  was  exacted,  at  this  time,  by  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  is  preserved  in  the 
Diurnal  of  the  Pontiff*.  In  the  first  part,  the  bishop  swears  to  protect  the  faith,  unity, 
and  interests  of  the  Church.  In  the  second,  he  avows  allegiance  to  the  emperor,  and 
promises  to  oppose  treason  and  to  inform  the  Pope  of  any  such  he  may  discover.  This 
second  part  was  modified  when  the.  conversion  of  the  northern  barbarians  changed  the 
circumstances  of  the  bishops  in  those  parts.  Thun  Gregory  the  Great  caused  the  Lombard 
pn-luten  to  swear,  instead  of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  to  contribute  to  all  Just  peace  be- 
tween their  nation  and  the  Roman  empire.  At  the  consecration  of  St.  Boniface,  another 
change  was  made.  Many  of  the  French  bishops  were  living  in  an  open  violation  of  the 
canons;  hence  Boniface  swore  that  he  would  not  communicate  with  them,  but  would  en- 
deavor to  reform  them  and  lading  in  this  that  he  wonld  denounce  them  to  the  Holy  See. 
Mosheim  takes  occasion  of  this  oath  to  carp  at  Boniface  as  a flatterer  of  the  PontifL 
Where  tlo*  flattery  lies  he  would  not  be  able  to  show.  The  saint  merely  obeyed  a legiti- 
mate order  an  i one  meant  lor  that  reformation  Mosheim  so  lands. 

(3)  Epistle*  of  St.  Boniface  no*.  91  and  92. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


8T.  BONIFACE,  APOSTLE  OF  GERMANY, 


523 


ofWalpurga  at  Heidenheim,  of  Chunihild  in  Thuringia, 
^nd  of  Chunitrude  in  Bavaria.  Jn  732,  Gregory  III.  mounted 
the  Papal  throne  ; and  he  soon  sent  the  pallium  to  Boni- 
face. and  made  him  primate  of  all  Germany.  In  738,  our 
saint  visited  Rome  for  the  third  time,  and  was  appointed 
Apostolic  legate  to  France  and  Geimany.  On  his  return, 
he  paused  awhile  in  Bavaria  at  the  request  of  Duke  Odilo, 
to  reform  several  abuses ; he  there  established  the  sees  of 
.Saltzburg  Freisinghein,  and  Ratisbon,  the  Pope  ratifying 
the  act  in  739.  About  this  ti:i:e,  he  also  founded  the  sees 
of  Erford  in  Thuringia.  Baraburg  in  Hesse  (since  translated 
to  Paderborn),  Wurtzburg  in  Fiauconia,  and  Achstat  in 
Bavaria.  In  the  year  751,  St  Boniface  took  a prominent 
part  in  a most  important  revolution.  The  weak  Merovin- 
gian kings  of  the  Franks  had  for  a long  time  held  merely 
the  royal  title,  while  their  “ mayors  of  the  palace  ” exer- 
cised the  real  power  of  the  crown.  Pepin  resolved  to  do 
away  with  the  shadow,  and  accordingly,  Childeric,  last  of 
the  race  of  Clovis,  was  relegated  to  a monastery,  and  Pepiu 
hailed  by  the  nation  as  king  of  the  Franks.  When  St. 
Boniface,  as  Apostolic  legate,  was  requested  to  crown  the 
new  king,  he  hesitated,  but  the  estates  of  the  realm  applied 
to  Pope  Zachary,  who  had  succeeded  Gregory  III.  in  741, 
and  that  Pontiff  answered  that  it  was  better  that  he  should 
be  king  who  really  exercised  the  royal  power.  Pepin  was 
then  crowned  at  Soissons. 

The  thirty-nine  letters  which  have  come  down  to  us  tes- 
tify to  the  indefatigable  zeal  of  St.  Boniface,  and  that  he 
had  always  in  view  the  greater  glory  of  God.  His  .epistles 
are  all  written  in  Latin,  although  the  language  in  most 
parts  of  Germany  was  almost  the  same  as  that  of  the  Eng- 
lish Saxons  of  that  day.  In  754,  the  saint  resolved  upon  a 
final  effort  to  convert  the  Pagans  of  Friesland.  Availing 
himself  of  the  privilege  granted  by  Pope  Zachary,  be  conse- 
crated as  his  successor  in  the  see  of  Mentz,  an  English 
monk  named  Lullus.  He  thefi  resigned  his  diocese,  and 
Pope  Stephen  II.  acquiescing,  nnd  confirming  the  nomina- 
tion of  Lullus,  he  took  a few  companions,  and  set  out  on  his 
last  mission.  Miraculous  success  attended  his  labors,  and 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


024 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


several  thousand  idolaters  were  received  into  the  Church. 
The  eve  of  Pentecost  was  appointed  for  their  confirmation, 
and  the  open  plains  of  Dockum  fixed  for  the  assembly. 
Here  he  had  pitched  his  tent,  and  was  awaiting  the  arrival 
of  the  converts,  when  a horde  of  ferocious  infidels  appeared 
in  the  plain,  and  by  their  cries  showed  the  hostil  ty  of  their 
intentions.  The  attendants  of  the  missionary  wished  to  de- 
fend his  and  their  own  lives,  but  he  exhorted  them  to  re- 
member that  this  was  the  day  they  had  so  long  desired. 
The  entire  band,  fifty-three  in  number,  of  whom  two  were 
bishops,  three  priests,  three  deacons,  four  monks,  and  the 
rest  laymen,  were  then  put  to  the  sword.  The  only  plunder 
found  by  the  butchers  consisted  of  relics  and  books,  which 
they  scattered  about  the  fields.  Three  of  these  latter  were 
afterwards  recovered,  and  preserved  in  the  monastery  of 
Fulda ; namely,  a Book  of  the  Gospels  written  by  our  saint,  a 
Harmony  of  the  New  Testament , and  a volume  containing  the 
letter  of  Pope  St.  Leo  to  Theodore  of  Frejus,  the  discourse 
of  St.  Ambrose  on  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a treatise  by  this 
holy  doctor  on  The  Advantage  of  Death. 

The  courage,  zeal,  and  success  of  St.  Boniface  were  un- 
questionable, and  his  devotion  to  the  Holy  See  so  evident, 
that  Protestant  writers  have  not  as  yet  endeavored,  as  in 
the  cases  of  St.  Patrick  and  St.  Augustine,  to  prove  that  his 
doctrine  was  other  than  that  of  Rome.  But  his  evident 
“ popery”  has  been  productive  of  attacks  on  his  motives, 
and  even  on  his  good  name.  Mosheim  (1)  tells  us  that 
“Boniface  merited  the  title  of  Apostle  of  the  Germans,  be- 
cause of  his  many  labors  for  Christ,  nor  will  a fair-minded 
inquirer  deem  him  unworthy  of  the  name.  But  in  many 
ways  he  departed  from  the  example  left  us  by  the  first  and 
true  Apostles.  To  say  nothing  of  his  zeal  for  the  dignity 
and  majesty  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  whose  legate  and  min- 
ister he  was,  which  equalled,  if  it  did  not  surpass,  his  care 
for  the  glory  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  did  not  always  oppose 
superstition  with  the  arms  adopted  by  the  ancient  Apos- 
tles, but  frequently  subjugated  the  minds  of  men  by  force 
and  by  fear,  and  even  by  artifice  and  fraud.  His  letters  be- 

(1)  History,  S'/i  Cent.,  p.  1,  f.  7,  9 4. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


BT  BONIFACE  APOSTLE  OS  GERMANY. 


525 


tray  an  imperious  and  arrogant  character,  a cunning  and 
derceitf ul  spirit,  an  excessive  desire  to  increase  the*  preroga- 
tives of  the  priestly  order,  and  a profound  ignorance  of 
many  things  necessary  for  an  Apostle,  and  of  much  that 
pertains  to  the  true  genius  of  the  Christian  religion.’*  St. 
Boniface  and  his  companions,  according  to  Mosheim,  were 
the  preachers,  not  of  Christianity,  but  of  popery ; rather 
than  ambassadors  of  Christ,  they  were  emissaries  and 
slaved  of  Rome ; in  murdering  them,  the  barbarous  but 
patriotic  Germans  did  a very  natural  and  praiseworthy 
thing.  The  head  and  front  of  St.  Boniface’s  offending  is 
his  popery.  But  what  other  system  could  he  have 
preached  ? Certainly  not  that  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  eight 
hundred  years  before  its  time.  In  the  Catholic  faith  as 
taught  by  Rome  he  had  been  raised  and  trained ; he  as 
firmly  held  it,  as  did  the  millions  of  Christians  of  the  time; 
it  is  absurd  then  to  reproach  him  for  teaching  the  same 
faith  in  the  infant  churches  of  Germany.  Had  he  done 
otherwise,  he  would  have  indeed  merited  reproach  as  one 
false  to  his  mission.  If  his  letters  breathe  a spirit  of  de- 
votion to  the  Holy  See  which  appears  extravagant  to  the 
colder  hearts  of  our  day,  we  must  remember  that  this  spirit 
was  the  very  life  of  Christendom  at  that  period;  that  in  the 
eighth  century  the  authority  of  Rome  extended  to  more 
objects  than  it  now  embraces  (1).  As  for  the  accusation 
that  St  Boniface  was  more  zealous  for  the  dignity  and  ag- 
grandizement of  the  Roman  See  than  for  the  glory  of  God, 
all  his  acts  go  to  show  that  he  regarded  the  glory  of  God  as 
principally  increased,  upon  this  earth,  by  those  who  obey 
the  institutions  which  He  founded.  In  common  with  all 
Catholic  missionaries,  he  was  convinced  that  the  Pope  was 
Christ’s  vicar  on  earth,  and  he  could  not  preach  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  without  inculcating  respect  for  him  upon 


(l)  “The  Pontifical  authority  reached  Its  greatest  development  when  Europe,  devas- 
tated bv  the  barbariaus,  was  cut  up  iuto  many  sovereignties,  fell  iu to  ignorance  and  into 
the  anarch v of  feudalism,  lost  her  customs,  her  laws  and  her  police,  haviug  for  masters 
only  P»roclous  an  l vicious  soldiers,  who  knew  no  other  right  than  that  of  the  stronger.  Of 
what  use,  in  moving  such  men,  would  have  l>eeu  prayer,  exhortation,  paternal  ndvio  • . 
Menaces  and  censures  were  necessary,  force  had  to  be  opposed  to  force,  and  often  oue 
fiction  had  to  be  armed  to  reduce  another.  If  we  attempt  to  judge  those  times  by  our  own, 
if  we  persuade  ourselves  that  those  people  could  be  uoverned  as  we  now  govern,  we  de- 
ceive ourselves,  and  all  declamations  based  upon  this  principle  are  empty.  The  power  of 
the  Popes  has  become  much  more  limited  as  things  have  changed,  and  as  order  has  been 
tarnished."  Bbroier  ; Dictionary . art.  Popes , 8 III. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


526' 


STUDIES  INr  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


whom,  as  upon  the  rock,  was  built  the  Church  which  had 
care  of  that  religion. 

St.  Boniface  is  charged  with  having  employed  force  and 
terror  to  convert  the  German  barbarians.  When  Mosheim 
makes  this  accusation,  one  would  expect  some  proof;  for  it 
is  difficult  to  picture  St.  -Boniface  in  the  guise  of  a Moham- 
medan fanatic  or  of  a Puritan  trooper,  as  the  German 
historian  perforce  incites  us  to  do.  Does  he  show  us  the 
English  apostle  forcing  the  barbarians  into  the  Church,  by 
means  of  the  troops  of  Charles  Martel?  The  sole  pro- 
tection which  the  Hammerer  and  his  sons,  Carloman  and 
Pepin,  gave  to  our  missionary,  was  what  was  necessary  for 
the  foundation  of  bishoprics,  monasteries,  and  schools. 
And  where  was  the  force  of  this  world  on  that  glorious  eve 
of  Pentecost,  when  the  Friesland  Pagans  attacked  him  and 
his  fifty-two  companions,  as  he  w'as  about  to  confirm  his 
neophytes  in  the  faith  ? Some  of  his  followers  would  fain 
have  sold  their  lives  dearly,  but  St.  Boniface  bade  them 
meet  their  death  as  a thing  long  desired,  for  it  was  the  gate 
of  everlasting  life.  He  had  already  said  (1)  : “If  it  be  the 

will  of  God,  let  us  die  for  the  holy  laws  of  our  fathers,  that 
we  may  arrive  with  them  at  the  eternal  inheritance.  Let 
us  not  be  dumb  dogs,  sleeping  sentinels,  hirelings  who  fly 
at  the  sight  of  the  wolf,  but  watchful  and  diligent  pastors  ; 
preaching  to  the  great  and  small,  to  the  rich  and  poor,  to 
every  age  and  condition,  being  instant  in  season  and  out  of 
season.”  Mosheim  declares  that  St.  Boniface  made  use  of 
“ artifice  and  fraud  ” to  make  converts  ; that  he  was  “ cunning 
and  deceitful. ' Of  artifice  and  fraud  we  can  find  no  trace, 
nor  does  Mosheim  produce  any  instance  of  such  practices. 
If  the  Protestant  historian  designates  as  “frauds”  the 
saint's  veneration  for  relics,  his  preaching  on  indulgences, 
purgatory,  miracles,  etc.,  he  should  show  us  some  probable 
ground  for  supposing  that  Boniface  did  not  himself  believe 
in  them.  This  cannot  be  shown  ; nay,  the  saint  gave  the 
best  proof  of  his  good  faith  when  he  yielded  up  his  life  in 
attestation  of  it.  If,  as  Mosheim  alleges,  St.  Boniface  was 
“imperious  and  arrogant/'  his  letters  ought  to  manifest 

(!)  Ep title  to  Cuthbcrl  of  Canterbury. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


8T.  BONIFACE,  APOSTLE  OF  GERMANY. 


527 


something  of  such  a spirit.  But  while  they  breathe  zeal 
and  Apostolic  firmness,  they  are  full  of  charity  and  of  Gos- 
pel sweetness.  He  was  strong  in  defence  of  the  sacerdotal 
prerogatives,  and  so  was  St.  Paul : “As  long  indeed  as  I 

am  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  I will  honor  toy  ministry.*' 
Rom.  XI.  v.  13.  And  : “ Let  no  man  despise  thee.”  Tit.  II. 
v.  15.  It  is  certain  that  St.  Boniface  was  far  less  domineer- 
ing in  his  rule  over  the  churches  of  his  foundation,  than 
were  Luther  and  Calvin  towards  those  whom  they  perverted. 
While  yet  in  the  fullness  of  his  strength,  he  appointed  a suc- 
cessor to  his  see  of  Mentz,  and  went  off  to  continue  his 
labors  among  the  idolaters.  For  the  rest,  the  authority 
which  he  claimed  for  bishops  was  simply  that  which  was 
recognized  as  their  right  by  the  Christendom  of  the  time. 
When  Mosheim  tells  us  that  St.  Boniface  was  u profoundly 
ignorant  of  much  that  pertains  to  the  true  genius  of  the 
Christian  religion,”  he  must  mean  that  the  saint  wps  in- 
nocent of  any  knowledge  of  that  genius  which  Protestantism 
was  yet  to  develop.  This  is  certainly  true.  Brucker  ven- 
tures to  blame  St.  Boniface  for  not  having  taught  philosophy 
to  the  German  barbarians  ; he  finds  fault  with  the  Bene- 
dictine scholars  for  attributing  erudition  to  the  saint,  and 
because  they  praise  him  for  founding  the  schools  of  Fulda 
and  of  Fritzlar.  No  one  contends  that  St.  Boniface  was  a 
great  philosopher,  and  if  he  had  been,  the  Germans  of  that 
day  could  scarcely  appreciate  metaphysics  before  they  had 
learned  to  read.  But  Brucker  alleges  a proof  of  our  saint’s 
ignorance  which  merits  more  than  a passing  notice. 

This  proof  of  ignorance  lies  in  the  fact,  according  to 
Brucker,  or  rather  Aventin  of  Bavaria,  that  St.  Boniface 
condemned  his  fellow-missionary,  the  Irishman  Virgil 
(Ferghil)  for  having  asserted  the  existence  of  Antipodes, 
that  is,  of  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  earth.  If  this  ac- 
cusation were  well  founded,  it  is  no  more  a proof  of  ig-i 
norance  in  our  saint,  than  would  be,  in  the  case  of  Bruck- 
er’s  idolized  Luther,  his  want  of  acquaintance  with  the 
telephone.  All  the  ancient  philosophers,  as  well  as  many 
of  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  deemed  the  earth  to  be  flat. 
Some  (1)  of  the  latter  certainly  manifest  a knowledge  of 

(1)  Philopoxus;  Creation  of  the  World,  b . 5,  c.  13. 


Digitized  by  v^ooQLe 


STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


528 

cosmography  greater  than  that  of  their  time,  and  show  that 
they  knew  that  the  earth  was  round.  Such  was  the  opin- 
ion of  St.  Basil  the  Great,  of  the  two  Gregorys  of  Nyssa 
and  Nazianzen,  of  Athanasius,  and  many  o hers.  But  it  is 
worse  than  hypercritical  to  blame  St.  Boniface  for  not  be- 
ing seven  hundred  years  ahead  of  his  time  in  mutters  of 
cosmography  (1).  However,  there  are  several  ? oints  to 
be  considered  before  .we  grant  even  this  ex^uD^ole  ignor- 
ance in  our  saint.  The  author  (2)  of  a Dissertation  printed 
in  the  Memoires  of  Trevoux , Jan  , 1708.  proves  that  the  fact 
alleged  by  Aventin  is  not  certain.  * The  only  foundation  for 
it  is  in  a letter  of  Pope  Zachary  to  St.  Boniface : “ If  it  is 

shown  that  Virgil  holds  that  there  is  another  world,  and 
that  there  are  other  men  under  this  earth,  another  sun 
and  another  moon,  convoke  a synod,  condemn  him.  deprive 
him  of  the  priesthood,  and  expel  him  from  the  Church.” 
But  there  is  no  proof  that  this  order  was  executed.  The 
accusation  may  have  been  found  baseless,  or  Virgil  may 
have  proved  the  orthodoxy  of  his  sentiments,  showing  that 
his  words  had  been  misinterpreted.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
certain  that  Virgil  lived  thereafter  in  the  friendship  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  and  of  St.  Boniface  ; that  he  was  made 
bishop  of  Salzburg,  and  that  he  was  finally  canonized  ; all 
which  certainly  proves  that  he  was  not  condemned  for 
heresy.  Again,  continues  this  author,  St.  Boniface  was 
right  in  his  condemnation  of  Virgil,  if  that  missionary  held, 
as  other  Antipodarians  had  held,  that  under  this  world 
there  were  other  men,  of  a different  species  than  our  own, 
one,  that  is,  not  of  the  race  of  Adam,  and  not  subject  to  the 
guilt  of  original  sin.  Such  a paradox  would  have  been 
contrary  to  Holy  Writ,  and  it  was  in  this  sense  only  that 
St.  Augustine  rejected  the  theory  of  the  Antipodes  (3). 
‘‘  It  is  true,”  says  Leibnitz  (4),  “ that  Boniface,  Archbishop 
of  Mentz,  accused  Virgil  of  Salzburg  of  error  in  this 
matter,  and  that  the  Pontiff  replied  to  his  letter  in  a 
manner  which  showed  that  he  greatly  leaned  towards  the 

(1)  D’Alembert,  in  th**  great  Encyclopedia , insists  particularly  on  this  proof  of  ignor. 
ance,  both  in  St.  Boniface  and  in  Pope  St.  Za^harv,  to  whom  the  csbo  of  Virgil  was  re- 
ferred. See  Vnl.  1,  Art.  Antipodes . Also,  Barouio,  y.  744. 

(2)  F.  Edward  de  Vi  try.  8.  J.  (3)  City  of  God,  b.  16. 

(4)  Spirit  of  Leibnitz , v.  2. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


8T.  BONIFACE,  APOSTLE  OF  GERMANY. 


529 


views  of  Boniface,  but  we  discover  no  consequences  of  the 
accusation.  The  two  antagonists  are  regarded  as  saints, 
and  the  learned  of  Bavaria,  who  look  upon  Virgil  as  the 
apostle  of  Carinthia  and  the  neighboring  regions,  have  justi- 
fied his  memory”  (1). 

(1)  *•  We  should  pause  for  a moment  to  consider,  in  this  great  man,  one  of  those  heroio 
lives  that  influence  the  destinies  of  nations.  His  life  is  a compendium  of  the  revolution 
which  Alls  many  centuries.  Wrapped  in  absolute  barbarism,  the  Germans  had  been 
surrouuded.  for  four  hundred  years,  by  the  institutions  ot  Christian  society  ; bishops  and 
•nonks  had  vaiuly  endeavored  to  educate  these  ignorant  tribes.  How  could  the  laith 
become  mistress  of  these  intellects  enslaved  by  the  senses  ? How  could  the  faith  subdue 
each  irregular  wills  ? Their  old  instincts  were  showing  themselves  in  slaughter  in 
robbery  aud  in  carousals  : after  thirtv  Catholic  kings,  the  Franks  were  returning  to  idol, 
atry  • the  sacrifices  of  Woden  reddened  the  altar  ot  Christ : and  perhaps,  in  a short  time, 
there  would  have  remained  only  a slight  remembrance  of  the  Gospel,  as  of  one  more  table 
in  the  Mythology  of  the  North.  Such  would  have  been  the  end  of  Christianity,  had  it  been 
left  to  the  free  genius  of  the  Germans.  The  barbarians  could  be  educated  only  under 
guardianship.  Their  uu roly  spirits  would  bow  only  to  the  ascendancy  ol  a t reat  power : 
euch  was  that  of  the  Popes,  who  manifested  that  paternal  character  which  is  derived 
from  their  divine  institution;  who  had  the  strength  of  ideas,  who  were  accustomed  to 
govern,  and  who  had  the  prestige  of  time  and  distance  and  the  majesty  01  the  Latin  name. 
By  these  means  the  Pontiffs  had  mastered  the  Franks,  and  through  them,  other  peoples. 
It  was  a decisive  moment  when  Gregory  U.  dictated  to  bishop  Boniface  the  oath  ot 
fidelity.  Home  then  witnessed  the  fa  I Ailment  of  what  she  bad  foreseen  when  Alsrlc  re- 
stored. in  pomp,  the  sa -red  vessels  to  St.  Peter's  basilica;  she  saw  her  empire  a^ain  ex- 
-tended  over  the  nations  that  uad  overthrown  it;  she  saw  a Saxon  bishop  kneeling,  in  the 
name  of  Germany,  at  the  feet  of  a Roman  citizen,  and  arising,  a legate  of  the  Vatican — 
a proconsul  of  the  new  era,  who  was  to  introduce,  without  the  aid  of  lictors  or  of  soldiery, 
the  legislative  genius  of  the  old  Senate  among  bis  people.  For  thirty-seven  years  Boniface 
carried  out  the  designs  of  the  Roman  policy  ; an  active  correspondence  with  the  Holy  See, 
and  twenty-four  letters  of  Popes  Gregory  II.,  Gregory  III.  and  Zachary,  show  us  the  fruitful 
docility  of  this  great  spirit.  The  northerners  accepted  the  benefloent  rule,  Imposed  upon 
them,  not  by  the  eagle,  butuuder  the  symbols  of  the  dove  and  the  lamb,  and  put  an  end 
-to  their  four  centuries  of  hesitancy  between  the  Gospel  and  idolatry.  The  Apostolic  legate 
reuewed  the  unction  on  the  brows  of  the  Austrasian  dukes ; the  Franks,  confirmed  in 
'their  mission,  found  themselves  as  God  had  wished  them  to  be,  defenders  of  the  Church, 
continuators  of  the  Romans,  and  an  insuperable  barrier  to  invasion.  The  past  and  the 
future,  all  times  and  all  powers,  appeared  united  to  prepare  the  Catholic  period  of  tha 
Middle  Age.”— Cantu  ; History , Documents,  art.  Sts.  Culumbanus  and  Boniface. 


Digitized  by  CjOOQle 


Digitized  by 


APPENDIX 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 

Qfthe  Raman  Pontiff*,  Emperor s,  Principal  Councils , Ecclesiastical 
Writers , a /id  Heretics . 


FIRST  CENTURY. 

Popes.  Emperor*.  EccL  Writers.  Heretics . 

Dot*  o/  Election.  Bate  of  Death. 


8t.  Peter’s  See 

Augustus,  y. 

14 

Denis  the  Areopaglte. 

Simon  Magus. 

at  Borne,  y. 

42  Tiberius, 

87 

St.  Clement,  Pope. 

Gnostics. 

Caligula, 

41 

Hennas. 

Corinthians. 

Claudius, 

54 

Nazareans. 

8t.  Linos, 

06  Nero, 

68 

Eblonltes. 

Galba,  Otho,  and 

Nlcolaltes. 

Vltelllus, 

60 

Menander. 

St.  Cletus, 

78  Vespasian, 

79 

Hymeneus. 

Titus, 

81 

Pblletus. 

81  Clement, 

01  Domltlan, 

96 

Nerva, 

98 

COUNCILB : 

Jerusalem, 

51  Antiocb,  (supposed)  58 

SECOND  CENTURY. 

Popes • 

Emperors. 

EccL  Writers. 

Heretics. 

Date  of  Election.  Date  of  Death. 

8t-  Evarist, 

100  Trajau, 

117 

St.  Ignatius,  of  Anti- 

Helcesaltes. 

St-  Alexander, 

109 

och. 

Saturnine,  Basilides, 

St.  Sixtus  I, 

119 

St.  Papias. 

Carpoc  rates. 

St.  Telesphorus, 

127 

St.  Polycarp. 

Adamites. 

8t-  Hvidnus. 

139  Adrian, 

138 

St.  Aristides. 

Valentine.  Apelles." 

St  Pius  I. 

142 

St.  Quadratus. 

Cerdo,  Praxeas. 

St-  Anu  etus. 

157  Antonlne, 

161 

St.  Justin. 

Marcion. 

St.  Seter, 

l»w  Marcus  Aurelius, 

180 

Athenagoras. 

Ophites,  Sethlens,  and 

St.  Eleutherlus, 

1 . • Coimnodus, 

192 

St.  Melito. 

Calottes. 

St.  Victor, 

193  Pertinax, 

193 

St-  Apollinaris. 

Quartodeclmans. 

St.  Irenseus. 

Marcosians. 

St.  Clement  of  Alex- 

Tatlan. 

andrla- 

Bardesanes. 

St.  Theophilus  of  An- 

Montanus. 

tioch. 

Theodotlans. 

Hermlas. 

Melchtsidechlans. 

Hegeslppus. 

Mlllenarians. 

-COUNCILS : 

Sicily, 

125  In  the  East, 

160  Lyons,  Ephesus, 

Borne,  198 

Rome, 

140  Rome. 

170 

Corinth.  Caesarea 

Mesopotamia,  198 

Pergamns. 

152  Hlcrapolls, 

173 

of  Palestine,  197 

Lyons.  199 

Digitized  by  CjOOQie 


$32 


APPENDIX 


THIRD  CENTURY. 


Popes.  Emperors.  Eccl.  Writers.  Heretics* 

Date  of  Election.  Date  of  Death. 


8t.  Zephyrinus, 
St.  Calixtus  I, 

202 

Severus, 

211 

Mlnutius  Felix.  Noetus. 

219 

C&racalla, 

217 

Julius  Africanus.  Novatlans. 

St.  Urban  I, 

2)3 

Maciiuus, 

218 

Calus.  Rebaptfceera. 

8t.  Pontlanus, 

280 

Hellogabalus. 

222 

Tertulllan.  Babel  11  us. 

St.  Antherus, 

235 

Alexander, 

285 

Ammonlus  Saccas.  Patrtpasslans. 

Bt.  Fabian, 

286 

Maximin  I, 

2 88  st.  Hlppolytus.  Paul  of  SamosattL 

Two  Gordians,  Max- 

Orlgeu.  ' Manteheans. 

lraus  & Balbin- 

283 

St  Cyprian. 

us,  Gordian  III, 

244 

St.  Dionysius  (Alex.). 

8t.  Cornelius, 

251 

Philip, 

249 

8t.  Dionysius  <Pope). 

St.  Lucius  I, 

252 

Dec!  us. 

251 

St.  (Gregory  (Thaum). 

St.  Stephen  I, 

253 

Gall  us. 

253 

8t.  A nautilus  of 

St.  Sixtus  IL, 

257 

Valerian, 

260 

Laodicea. 

St  Dionysius, 

259 

Gallienus : the 

St.  Felix  I, 

260 

8o  tyrant*. 

268 

St.  Eutychi&n, 

275 

Claudius  iZ 

270 

Aureliac, 

275 

St.  Calus, 

283 

Tael  us. 

276 

St.  Marcelllnus, 

296 

Piobus, 

282 

Carus.  283 

Numerlan,  284 


councils  : 

•Carthage,  215  Arabia,  249  Antioch,  263  Antioch,  264 

“ 217  Achaia,  250  Cur^ago,  253  Rome,  268 

Alexandria,  228  Rome,  250  Rome,  256  Auliocb,  268 

“ 236  “ 250  Narbonne,  257  ’*  209 

Rome,  287  Carthage,  251  Alexandria,  258  A nryra  (Galatia),  278 

Philadelphia,  242  Rome,  252  Rome,  260  Ancyra  (Syria),  277 

Ephesus,  245  Carthage,  252  Alexandria,  263  Mesopotamia,  277 


FOURTH  CENTURY. 

Popes.  Emperors.  Eccl-  Writers.  Heretics. 

Date  of  Election.  Date  of  Death. 

Diocletian  & Maxim-  Arnoblus.  Donatlsta 

ian  abdicate,  S05  St.  Pamphylus.  Arlans. 

St.  Marcell  us  I,  808  Constantins  Chlor-  Lactantius.  Phot  in  us. 

us,  306  Eusebius  of  Cspsarea.  Macedonians. 

.St.  Eusebius,  810  Severus,  807  Hosius  of  Cordova.  Aerians. 

St.  MUtlades,  811  Galerlus,  811  St.  Hilary  of  Toilers.  Apolllnarlsts. 

St.  Sylvester,  314  Maxentlus,  812  St.  Eusebiusof Vercelll.  Coltyridians. 

Maximin.  818  Lucifer  of  Cagliari.  PriHoilllanists. 

Licinius  (East),  824  St- Athanasius.  Messallans. 

St.  Mark,  886  Constantine,  8,7  The  two  Apoilinarli.  Ithacians. 

St.  Julius  I,  337  Constantine  II,  840  St.  Basil.  Helvidius. 

Constans,  350  St.  Ephrem.  Jovinlan. 

Llberius,  852  Constant!  us,  361  Optatus  of  Milevl  Vigl  lan  tius. 

St.  Damasus,  366  Julian  the  Apos-  St.  Dumasus  (Pope). 

tate,  863  St.  Cyril  (Jerusa'em). 

St.  Slrlclus,  885  Jovian,  St.  Gregory  Nazian- 

8t.  Auastasius  I,  398  Valentinlan  I,  875  xeti. 

Gratlan.  383  Rt.  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

Valentinlan  II,  392  St.  Parian. 

St.  Phllaster. 

Eastern  Emperors,  st.  Aml-Fose- 
Valens,  378  St.  Epiphauius. 

Theodosius,  895  Ruflnus. 

St.  Ga  <dentlus. 

Sulpiclus  Severus. 

Evagrlus. 

St.  Jerome. 

St.  Augustine. 

St.  Paulinus  of  Nola. 

COUNCILS : 

805  Neo-Caesarea,  814  Alexandria,  821  Carthage,  886 

»)8  Alex  indrla,  315  Gangres,  S24  Rome,  837 

31 1 Palestine,  318  Rome.  82<  Alexandria,  840 

313  Alexandria,  319  N Ice  (1st  Gen.),  $25  Antioch,  841 

314  Rome.  820  Rome,  825  Rome,  842 

314  Laodicea,  320  Alexandria,  880  Milan,  844  or  316 


Elvira, 

Alexandria, 

Carthage, 

Rome, 

Arles, 

Ancyra, 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


APPENDIX, 


533 


COUNCILS  (CENT.  lV.)-Continued. 


Antioch. 

845  Alexandria, 

363  Milan, 

880  Milan, 

Cologne, 

846  Antioch, 

863  Saragossa. 

880  Carthage, 

8ardlca, 

847  Laodicea, 

864  Constantinople, 

Constantinople, 

Milan. 

817  Illyria, 

365  (2d  Gen.), 

381  Carthage, 

Cordova, 

847  Caesarea, 

865  Aquilea, 

881  Hippo, 

Jerusalem, 

348  Rome, 

366  Rome, 

382  Cabarsusslt, 

Rome, 

319  Sicily, 

366  Constantinople, 

882  Constantinople, 

Jerusalem, 

350  Tyana, 

366  Sida, 

883  Carthage, 

Bazas, 

351  Rome, 

367  Constantinople, 

883  Hadrumetta, 

Rome, 

352  Rome, 

367  Antioch, 

883  Carerre, 

Poitiers, 

855  Rome, 

368  Nlraes, 

888  Hippo, 

Milan, 

85'»  Rome, 

869  Bordeaux, 

385  Turin, 

Ancyra, 

858  Rome, 

870  Rome, 

886  Carthage, 

Rome, 

858  Illyria, 

873  Treves, 

386  Carthage, 

Rimini, 

859  Rome, 

873  Zelle, 

386  Carthage, 

Achala, 

359  Valence, 

(Dauph-  Antioch, 

888  Alexandria, 

Paris, 

860  Iny), 

874  Toledo, 

888  Cyprus, 

Antioch, 

360  Ganffres, 

375  Capua, 

889  Constantinople, 

Alexandria, 

862  Antioch, 

377  Carthage, 

889  Rome, 

Constantinople, 

362  Rome, 

378  Rome, 

890  Toledo, 

Paris, 

362  Antioch, 

379 

FIFTH  CENTURY. 


Popes. 

Date  of  Election . 
St.  Innocent  I,  402 

8t.  Zosimus,  417 

St.  Boniface  I,  418 

8t.  Caelestine  I,  422 

8t.  Sixtus  III,  482 

St.  Leo  the  Great,  4 10 

St.  Hilar?.  446 

St.  Simplicius,  468 

St.  Fel.x  II,  488 

8t>  Gelasius,  492 

8U  Anastasius  II,  496 

8t.  Bymmachus,  408 


Emperors • 

Date  of  Death. 
Honorlus,  428 

Valenti  nlan  III,  455 
Maximus,  455 

A vltus,  456 

Majorlan,  461 

Severus,  465 

Anthemius,  472 

Glycerlus  (deposed 
in),  472 

Julius  Nepos  (de- 
posed lu),  475 

Romulus  Aiigustu- 
lus  (deposed  In),  476 


Eastern  Emperors. 
Zeno,  401 


Eccl.  Writers. 


8t.  Chrysostom. 

St.  Cyril  (Alex.), 

St.  Prosper, 

St.  Vincent  c.  Lerina, 
Paulus  Orosius, 
Prudentlus, 

Casslan. 

St.  Eucherius. 
Claudlan  Maraert, 

St.  Hilary  of  Arles, 
Theodoret, 

Socrates, 

Sozomenus, 

St.  Leo  the  Great, 

St.  Maximus  of  Turin, 
St.  Peter  Chrysologus, 
8alvlanus, 

8t.  Nllus, 

Syneslus, 

Gennadi  us. 


Heretics. 


Pelagtus. 

Nestor!  us. 
Eutyches. 
Predcstmattobisti 


Peter  Pulio. 
Theopaachltes. 


COUNCILS : 


African,  or  of 

Car-  Rome, 

417  Antioch, 

thage. 

401  Carthage, 

417  Constantinople, 

Alexandria, 

401  Carthage, 

418  Constantinople, 

Ephesus, 

401  Tnlepte, 

418  Riez, 

Turin, 

401  Carthage, 

419  Ephesus, 

Mtlevi, 

402  Rome, 

419  Orange, 

Afr.,  or  Carthage, 

, 403  Ravenna, 

419  Valson, 

Constantinople, 

403  Co  rt  tinge. 

420  Bazas, 

Carthage, 

404  Hippo, 

422  Arles, 

African 

405  Antioch, 

424  Rome, 

Italy, 

405  Carthage, 

425  Besancjou 

Toledo, 

105  Hippo, 

426  Rome, 

Africa, 

Constantinople, 

426  Antioch, 

Carthage. 

*0?  The  Gauls, 

429  Hi  era  poll  8, 

Carthage, 

407  Rome, 

430  st.  Albans, 

Carthage, 

410  Alexandria, 

430  Wilkins. 

Ptolemais, 

4!  I Ephesus  *3d  Gen.), 431  Two  Spanish, 

Carthage, 

411  Antioch, 

432  Ephesus, 

Braga, 

411  Anozarba, 

433  Astorga, 

Zerthe, 

413  Rome, 

433  Antioch, 

Carthage. 

412  Tarsus. 

431  Tyre. 

Jerusalem, 

415  Anlioch, 

434  Berytum, 

Dios  polls, 

415  Thessalonica, 

435  Constantinople, 

Jerusalem, 

416  Armenia, 

435 

436  Constantinople 

438  Britain  (Gt.), 

439  Rome, 

439  Constantinople 

440  Milan, 

442  Chalcedon  (4th 
442  Gen.), 

442  Arles, 

444  A offers, 

444  Jerusalem, 

445  Arles, 

415  Rome, 

445  Constantinople, 

446  Tours, 

446  Rome, 

447  Spain, 

447  Vannes, 

447  Rome, 

448  Antioch, 

448  Ephesus, 

448  Lyons, 

448  Arles, 


Digitized  by  Cjooole 


534 


APPENDIX. 


SIXTH  CENTURY. 

Pope*.  Eastern  Emperors . Ectl.  Writers . Heretics. 

Date  of  Election.  Date  of  Death. 

St.  Hormlsdas,  514  Anastaslus,  518  Ennodlus,  In  corrupt  lb  list*, 

St.  John  I,  523  Justin  I,  527  Pascbasius  (deacon),  Phantoslasts, 

St.  Felix  III,  626  Justinian  I,  665  Boetlus  Themtstlans, 

St.  Boniface  II,  530  Justin  II,  578  st.  Fulgent  I us,  Tritheltes. 

St.  John  II,  533  Tiberius  II,  582  Dionysius  (the  Little). 

St.  Agapetus,  535  Ferrand  (deacon  \ 

St.  Silverlus.  536  St.  Cffisarlus  of  Arles, 

Vlgillus,  537  - Facundus, 

St.  Pelaglus  I,  555  Casslodorus, 

St.  John  III,  559  Llberatus, 

St.  Benedict  I,  573  St.  Gregory  of  Tours, 

St.  Pelaglus  II,  578  St.  John  Cllmacus, 

St.  Gregory  the  Fortunatus. 

Great,  500 


PRINCIPAL  COUNCILS : * 


Aprde, 

506  Carthage, 

525  Orleans  (V), 

549  Braga  OI), 

57* 

Orleans  (I), 

511  Vaison, 

529  Constantinople,  (5th  Mascon  (I), 

583 

Tarragona, 

516  Toledo  (II), 

533  Gen.), 

553  Mascon  (II), 

585 

Glronne, 

517  Orleans  (ID, 

533  Paris  (III), 

557  Auxerre, 

585 

Epona, 

517  Auvergne, 

535  Braga  (D. 

563  Toledo  Oil). 

- 589 

Lyons  (I). 

517  Orleans  (III), 

638  Lyons  (II), 

567  Narbonna, 

589 

Lerida, 

524  Barcelona, 

540  Tours  (II). 

667  Saragossa  (II), 

692 

Valentla, 

524  Orleans  (IV), 

541  Lugo, 

509  Seville  (I), 

609 

Arles  (IV), 

524 

SEVENTH  CENTURY. 


Popes.  Eastern  Emperors.  Eccl.  Writers.  Heretics 

Date  of  Election.  Date  of  Death. 

Sablnian,  604  Mauritius  602  Mohammed. 

Boniface  III,  607  Phocas,  610  Anastaslus  Sinalta,  Monothelitee. 

Boniface  IV,  608  Heraclius,  641  John  Moschus.  Paullcians. 

St.  Deusdedlt,  615  Coustantlne,  641  St.  Isidore  of  Seville, 

Boniface  V,  618  Constans  II,  668  Sophronius, 

Honor! us  I,  62  > Constantine (PogJ,685  St.  Maxiinus  (abbot), 

Severinus,  640  Justinian II-  (dep.),695  St.  Hildephonse, 

John  IV,  640  Leontius,  698  St.  Julian  of  Toledo. 

Theodore  I,  642  Marculphus. 

St.  Martin  I.  649  Theodor?  of  Can ter- 

St.  F.ugenlus  I.  654  bury. 

Vitalian,  657  Adamnan. 

Deusdedit  II,  672 

Donus  I,  676  » 

St.  Agatho,  678 

St.  I>eo  II.  082 

St,  Benedict  II,  6S4 

John  V,  685 

Conon.  686 

St.  Sergius  I,  687 


PRINCIPAL  COUNCILS  : 


Paris  (V),  614  Chalons  Hertford.  678  Toledo  (XIV),  684 

Seville  (II),  619  (sur  Saone),  a50  Toledo  (XI),  675  Toledo  (XV),  688 

Rheims,  625  Tolodo  (VIII)  653  Braga  (IV).  675  Saragossa  (III),  691 

Toledo  (IV),  634  Toledo  (IX),  655  Constantinople  (6th  In  Trullo,  (Qutal- 

Toledo  i V),  636  Toledo  (X),  656  Gen.),  680  sext),  00* 

Toledo  (VI),  637  Nantes,  656  Toledo  (XII),  681  Toledo  (XVI),  698. 

Toledo  (VII),  647  Autun,  670  Toledo  (XIII),  G83  Toledo  (XVII).  694. 


• The  Councils  now  become  too  numerous  to  be  all  uoticed  in  a compendium. 


Digitized  by  Cjoooie 


APPENDIX. 


535 


EIGHTH  CENTURY. 


Papes 

Date  of  Election. 
John  VI.  701 

John  VII,  705 

Slslnnius,  708 

Constantine,  70S 
8t.  Gregory  II,  715 
Gregory  III,  731 
St.  zacchary,  741 
Stephen  II  (often  not 
counted,  as  he  died  be- 
fore consecration),  758 
8tepben  III,  752 
81.  Paul  I,  757 

8tephen  IV,  763 
Adrian  I,  772 

St.  Leo  III,  796 


Eastern  Emperors. 
Date  of  Death. 


Eccl.  Writers. 
St.  Aldhelm, 


Apsimarus, 
Justinian  II, 
Philippicus. 
Anastastus  II, 
Leo  the  Isaurlan. 
Constantine 
nymus 
Leo  IV, 

Constantine  VI, 


i05  Ven-  B**10 
711  St.  John  Damascene, 
713  Aiculn, 

713  St.  Paullnus  of 
741  Aquilela, 

Copro-  Etherius, 

775  Beatus,  • 

780  Paul  (deacon). 


Heretics. 

Iconoclasts, 

Adelbert  & Clement. 
Ellpand  of  Toledo, 
and  Felix  of  Urgel, 


797  Theopbanes, 

Ambrose  Autpertns, 

Revival  of  Western 
Empire. 

Charlemagne  pro- 
claimed emperor  by 
Pope  St.  Leo  III,  Dec. 

26,  799,  but  as  the 
year  was  then  count- 
ed from  Christmas, 
this  event  is  generally 
placed  in  800. 


PRINCIPAL  COUNCILS: 


Germanic,  held  ac-  Lestines. 
cording  to  some,  at  Soissons, 
Ratlsbon ; according  Cloveshoe 
to  others,  at  Augs-  Verberie, 
4>urg,  742 


755  Constantinople,  (7th. 
— ~ 787 


744  Verneuil, 

745  Complegne.  757  Gen.) 

747  Bavarian,  at  Dingol-  Frankfort,  794 

758  vinga,  771  Friuli,  791 


Digitized  by 


Google 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  L 


CENT.  I. -VIII. 


chap.  pag*. 

I.  The  Roman  Pontificate  of  St  Peter  the  Apostle.  - • - 1 

II.  The  Heresies  of  the  First  Three  Centuries.  ...  2& 

III.  The  First  Persecutions  of  the  Church.  - - • - 41 

IV.  The  Rapid  Propagation  of  Christianity  a Proof  of  its  Divinity.  59- 

V.  Ecclesiastical  Writers  of  the  First  Century.  - 67 

VI.  The  Conversion  of  Gaul,  and  the  Question  of  the  Areopagite.  - 85- 

VII.  The  Discipline  of  the  Secret  - - - 96 

VIII.  The  Controversy  Regarding  the  Paschal  Time.  - - 105 

IX.  The  Controversy  Regarding  the  “ Fallen  ” during  Persecution.  120- 

X.  The  Novatian  Schism.  - 127 

XT.  The  Controversy  on  the  Repetition  of  Baptism.  - - 132 

XII.  Paul  of  Samosata.  ------  14& 

XIII.  The  Conversion  and  Baptism  of  Constantine.  - - - 150- 

XIV.  Canonical  Penance  and  Auricular  Confession.  - - 160 

XV.  The  Institution  of  Sacred  Rites.  ....  168 

XVI.  Julian  the  Apostate.  - - - - - - 178 

XVII.  The  Donatists.  - - - - - -187 

XVIII.  Arianism,  and  the  Council  of  Nice.  ...  196. 

XIX.  The  Council  < f Sardica.  - ....  209 

XX.  The  Alleged  Heresy  of  Pope  Liberius.  ...  220 

XXL  The  Council  of  Rimini.  - 238 

XXII.  The  Second  Gen.  Council — First  of  Constantinople.  - - 240 

XXIII.  The  Appeal  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  to  Pope  St.  Innocent  I.  - 246 

XXIV.  Pelagianism.  - 253 

XXV.  African  Appeals  to  the  Holy  See.  ....  264 

XXVI.  Nestorianism  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus — Third  General.  27& 
XXVII.  The  Faith  Preached  by  St.  Patrick.  ...  - 289 

XXVIII.  Eutychianism,  and  the  Council  Chalcedon — Fourth  General.  - 329 

XXIX.  The  Acacian  Schism.  ------  344 

XXX.  The  Conciliar  Judgment  in  the  Case  of  Pope  Symmachus.  361 


Digitized  by  kjooole 


538 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 


Chap.  Pack. 


XXXI.  Controversy  of  the  <4  Three  Chapters,”  and  Fifth  Gen.  Council.  359 
XXXII.  The  Pontificate  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  - - - 380 

XXXIII.  The  Conversion  of  England.  -----  395 

XXXIV.  Monothelitism,  and  the  Sixth  Gen.  Council.  - - 419 

XXXV.  The  Alleged  Heresy  of  Pope  Honorius.  - - - 432 

XXXVI.  The  Trullan  Synod. 449 

XXXVII.  Islainism. 454 

XXXVIII.  The  Paulician  Heresy.  - - - 463 

XXXIX.  The  Iconoclast  Heresy,  and  the  Seventh  Gen.  Council  - 466 

XL.  Origin  of  the  Papal  Dominion  in  the  Roman  States.  - 501 

XLI.  Territorial  Modifications  of  the  Papal  Dominions.  - - 512 

XLII.  St  Boniface,  Apostle  of  Germany.  - - 519 

Appendix  : Chronological  Tables,  showing  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  Emperors, 
Councils,  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  and  Heresies,  during  Centuries 
I.-VHI.  - - 531 


Digitized  by  tjooole 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle 


THE  BURKE  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  v^ooQle  •